Tehal Singh vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain, J.

Tehal Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking his temporary release on parole for six weeks under Section 3(1) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act'').

The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 302/324/148 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge. Ludhiana by judgment dated 25.4.1994 and the petitioner is undergoing his sentence in Central Jail, Ludhiana. According to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has undergone more than two years and seven months actual sentence of imprisonment including under trial period and his conduct has remained good and satisfactory inside the jail. One emergency parole for 15 days was given to him which remained peaceful and he surrendered before the jail authorities in time. His family consists of himself, his wife and three minor daughters. He owns 32 kanals of land in his village and since there is no other male member to cultivate the said land he has applied for parole.

Earlier the petitioner had applied for parole for a period of 4 weeks of look after his ailing wife by filing Cr. Misc. No. 13282M of 1994 which was allowed by another Bench of this Court and a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Act, failing which the petitioner was to be released on parole for the period applied for to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned. However, the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, did not recommend the case of the petitioner on the ground that the release of the petitioner would cause breach of peace inasmuch as the petitioner had killed his brother in a land dispute and that the petitioner had also not undergone actual sentence of one year.

In the meanwhile the daughter of the petitioner applied for grant of parole of the petitioner for agricultural operation vide application copy of which is Annexure P1 and which was sent by the registered post, the postal registration receipt of which is Annexure P.2. In this application the respondents did not pass any order till today. Now the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking parole for a period of 6 weeks for agricultural purposes.

Notice of motion was given to the respondents. In reply it has been stated that the earlier request of the petitioner was rejected on account of the fact that the release of the petitioner on parole would cause breach of peace and that he had not undergone even actual sentence of one year as required under the Rules. It is further stated that the case for release on parole for agricultural operation would be considered as and when the petitioner would apply. The averments made in para 4 have not been specifically denied. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is not disputed at the Bar that the petitioner fulfils all the necessary conditions for his temporary release on parole for agricultural purposes as envisaged by Section 3(1)(c) of the Act. The only ground on which his request for parole was rejected earlier, in spite of the specific orders in this case in the criminal miscellaneous application noted above, is that the release of the petitioner on parole would cause breach of peace as the petitioner had killed his brother in a land dispute. Section 6 of the Act in this context is relevant and the same reads as under:

"6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases: 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 any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order."

It is apparent from the aforesaid provision that if on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer so authorised is satisfied that release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of the public order then such a request necessarily has to be turned down. In the present cse, it is nonwhere alleged by the under respondents that the release of the petitioner on parole is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of the public order. The mere fact that the petitioner has been convicted for committing the murder of his own brother in a land dispute, cannot be said to be a just and proper reason under section 6 of the Act to deny the benefit of parole to the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed an affidavit sworn by the Lambardar of the village wherein it has been specificaly mentioned that the petitioner has no dispute with anyone in he village. Even otherwise, it is not disputed that the petitioner was granted earlier emergency parole for 15 days which was spent by him peacefully and there was no untoward incident during that period and he has surrendered before the jail authorities in time. No other ground or reason has been shown or put forward by the State for denying parole to the petitioner, may be to look after his ailing wife or for agricultural purposes. The earlier rejection of the request of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. In these circumstances, I do not find it necessary to refer back the matter to the State Authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his release on parole.

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. Accordingly it is directed that the petitioner be released on 6 week''s parole for agricultural purpose on usual terms to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana.