Crl.Misc.No.M-36112 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-36112 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 27, 2010 Kuldeep Kumar .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Ms.B.P.K. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure P-2/T), whereby his prayer for temporary release on parole for four weeks to meet his family members, has been declined on the ground that in case the petitioner is released on parole, it will result into breach of peace in the village. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is undisputed position that after the conviction, the petitioner Crl.Misc.No.M-36112 of 2009 -2- has undergone one year and ten months of sentence and during his custody in the jail, he has not committed any jail offence and maintained good conduct throughout his custody period. It is also conceded position that the petitioner can be temporarily released on parole for four weeks under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') to enable him to meet his family members. Rule 3(1) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release), Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') provides that a prisoner desirous of seeking temporary release under section 3 of the Act shall make an application in Form A-1 or Form A-2, as the case may be, to the Superintendent of Jail. Such an application may also be made by an adult member of the prisoner's family. Sub-rule (2) further provides that the Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application along with his report to the District Magistrate, who after consulting the Superintendent of Police of his District, shall forward the case with his recommendations to the Inspector General. The Inspector General will then record his views on the case whether the prisoner is to be released or not and submit the same to the Releasing Authority for orders. The District Magistrate, before making any recommendation, shall verify the facts and grounds on which release has been requested and shall also give his opinion whether the temporary release is opposed on grounds of prisoner's presence being dangerous to the security of State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Proviso to this sub-rule provides that no such application shall be processed by the Superintendent of Jail, unless the prisoner had maintained good conduct after his conviction at least for four months in jail. Admittedly, the petitioner has fulfilled this condition. In the Crl.Misc.No.M-36112 of 2009 -3- instant case, the temporary release of the petitioner on parole has been declined only on the ground that in the event of temporary release of the petitioner on parole, there is apprehension of breach of peace in the village, whereas according to sub-rule(2) and Rule 3, the parole could be declined where the District Magistrate on the report opined that temporary release of a convict on parole is dangerous to the security of State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the reply, the respondents are relying upon the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar to the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure R-6/T. In the said report, Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar has not recommended the parole case of the petitioner only on the apprehension of the complainant party and other family members that they apprehend danger on the release of the petitioner on parole. Therefore, there is a danger of breach of peace and law and order on the release of the convict on parole. In our opinion, on such kind of vague report, without any basis and foundation, the benefit of parole, to which a convict can avail on fulfilling certain conditions, should not be denied. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined merely on the apprehension raised by the complainant party that the release of the convict on parole will endanger their life or cause breach of peace in the village. In the instant case, no such Crl.Misc.No.M-36112 of 2009 -4- strong material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for four weeks to meet his family members. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.10.2009 is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light of the observations made in this order and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 27, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE