Criminal Writ Petition No.1530 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.1530 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:- September 9,2010 Baljinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mrs. BPK Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for four weeks to enable him to meet his family members and to repair his damaged house in accordance with his entitlement under Section 3(1)(d) of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short the 'Act'), after setting aside the impugned order, Annexure P2, passed by the competent authority rejecting the request of the petitioner in this regard. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Amritsar, awarded to him in trial held in FIR No.33 of 2006, dated 22.4.2006, under Sections 302, 396, 397, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar. He has submitted an application dated 31.3.2009 to Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar for seeking four weeks parole for meeting his family members and for conducting repair work to his Criminal Writ Petition No.1530 of 2010(O&M) -2- damaged house. As he was entitled to be released on parole, as per the Act and the Rules, his case was sent by Superintendent Jail to the concerned District Magistrate for his recommendation. However, the District Magistrate on the basis of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, did not recommend for release of petitioner on parole and hence, competent authority rejected the case of the petitioner for release on parole. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order passed by the competent authority is without any basis and that rather the Panchayat of the village has also recommended for release of petitioner on parole. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict be released on parole, which reads as under:- “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds:- (1) The State Government may in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section(2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that:- (a) a member of the prisoner's family had died or is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. Criminal Writ Petition No.1530 of 2010(O&M) -3- (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub section (1), two weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and (c ) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c ) of sub- Section (1), six weeks. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), where a prisoner undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment, is to be released on the ground specified in Clause (d) of sub-section (1); he may be released for a period of six months or less in parts, during the five years. (3) The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of the release of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may by notification authorise any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein.” However, release on parole can be refused by competent authority by exercising power under Section 6 of the Act, which 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 Criminal Writ Petition No.1530 of 2010(O&M) -4- 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.” Hence, a careful perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that parole can be refused if release of a convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Hence, this Court is to see as to whether the impugned order passed by the competent authority is covered by any of the such grounds. The present case is not such that the release of petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State. This Court is to see as to whether release of the petitioner on parole is likely to endanger maintenance of public order. District Magistrate, Tarn Taran, in his report, Annexure R1 sent to the competent authority, i.e., Director General of Police (Prisons), Punjab, Chandigarh, has mentioned that petitioner is habitual offender of looting and snatching and that there is likelihood of his absconding, if released on parole, and committing untoward incident at any time. He has also given details of other cases, in which petitioner is involved as under:- “1. Case FIR No.26 dated 4.2.2005 under Section 356, Indian Penal Code, Police Station Tarn Taran. 2. Case FIR No.94 dated 25.8.2009 under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Verowal. 3. Case FIR No.95 dated 25.8.2006 under Section 25, Arms Act, Police Station Verowal. 4. Case FIR No.33/06 dated 25.8.2009 under Sections 396/97 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar.” Hence, in view of these facts, there was sufficient ground for the competent authority to decline the request of the petitioner for his release on parole. Taking into consideration the fact that Criminal Writ Petition No.1530 of 2010(O&M) -5- petitioner is a habitual offender, competent authority came to the conclusion that his release on parole is likely to endanger maintenance of public order. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by competent authority in refusing to release the petitioner on parole, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. September 9, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) meenu JUDGE