Tarjinder Singh vs State of Haryana

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

In this petition under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the convict petitioner has sought directions from this Court to release him temporarily on agricultural parole for six weeks under section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short, the Act).

As stated in the petition, the convict petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Hisar, on December 2, 1990 though he is in jail since the day of his arrest and has undergone five years actual sentence after conviction as well as during the trial. It is further stated therein that earlier the petitioner availed of three emergency paroles peacefully, but since the date of his conviction, i.e. December 21, 1990, he has not availed or any parole. He states in the petition that his conduct both inside the jail as outside while he was on parole, remained good and satisfactory. It is also stated in the petition that he left behind at home his wife and two minor children and there is no other adult male member in his family who could look after his agricultural land. The family of the petitioner is passing through difficult days as there is no other source of income to his family except agricultural produce.

The case of the petitioner was recommended for grant of agricultural parole by respondent No. 2 that is, Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar, after satisfying himself with the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the jamabandi for the year 198687 showing the ownership of the land in his name. A copy of the certificate of the Gram Panchayat has also been attached with the petition as Annexure P/2, stating therein that there is no apprehension of breach of public peace on the release of the petitioner on parole in the village.

Written statement has been filed by Raj Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The averments made by the petitioner regarding his good conduct inside the jail as well as outside have not been denied in the written statement. It has been stated in para 4 of the written statement that the District Magistrate, Hisar after making enquiry through the Police Department did not recommend the parole release case of the petitioner due to an apprehension of breach of public peace. It is further stated in reply to Para 4 of the petition that on the report of the District Magistrate, Hisar, the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh had rejected the parole release case of the petitioner vide No. 9489GI/G5/R92/T15, dated May 21, 1991. In reply to para 6 of the petition, it is stated in the written statement that the certificate the Gram Panchayat attached with the petition as Annexure P2, has no value in the eye of law being not a copy of any resolution passed by the village Panchayat.

As stated above, the petitioner seeks agricultural parole under section 3(1)(c) of the Act" which is reproduced as under :

"3. (1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in Subsection (2), any prisoner, if the State Government is satisfied that

(a) xx xx xx

(b) xx xx xx

(c) The temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land or his father''s undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner; or

(d) xx xx xx

The petitioner can be denied agricultural parole only under section 6 of the Act, if the Authority concerned is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

Section 6 is in the following terms :

"6. Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order."

I have gone through Annexure RI which is described to be a report of the District Magistrate, Hisar. The relevant extract of Annexure RI is reproduced hereunder :

"... ... ... ...

Respected Sir,

The children of the convict are residing in village Aharwan. The convict had committed the murder of his cousin. Due to this reason he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Now the sowing season has been completed. On his arrival an parole there can be danger of serious crime. Thus the Release on Parole of convict is not recommended (Not recommended).

Sd/

Dy. Superintendent of Police,

Fatehabad (Hisar)

9.3.1992.

No. 83/Parole/PO Dated 13.3.1992.

Forwarded in original to the District Magistrate, Hisar, keeping in view the report of local Police, the Parole release of convict Tarjinder Singh is not recommended.

Sd/

Superintendent of Police,

Hisar

10.3.1992.

District Magistrate, Hisar,

Office of the District Magistrate : Hisar

Endst. No. 83/PB Dated 25.3.1992.

The same is forwarded in original to the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, ManiMajra, Chandigarh, that keeping in view the report of the Superintendent of Police, Hisar the release on Parole of convict No. 4163C Tarjinder Singh son of Darshan Singh is not recommended (Not recommended).

Sd/

District Magistrate, Hisar

17.3.1992.

As is discernible from a reading of Annexure RI neither in the Police Report nor in the report of the District Magistrate, it is anywhere written that the District Magistrate is satisfied that the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. It is not understood as to from where it has been incorporated in the order, dated May 21, 1992, passed by the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, declining the request of the petitioner for his temporary release on agricultural parole that "According to the report of the District Magistrate, Hisar, if convict Tarjinder Singh son of Darshan Singh is released on parole there can be apprehension of breach of public peace." It means even the mention of apprehension of breach of public peace in the above said order is without any basis. This approach of the Authority rejecting the request of the petitioner seems to be highly arbitrary, unjust and unfair.

In this view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner seems to be genuine and the order, dated May 21, 1992 refusing the prayer for his release on agricultural parole is without any basis which needs to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly.

This petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner temporarily on agricultural parole for six weeks, subject to his furnishing adequate security/surety to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Hissar.