Crl.Misc.No.M-1787 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-1787 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 26, 2010 Manoj Kumar .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr.A.S. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who is a life convict and undergoing the imprisonment in Central Jail, Jalandhar, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 1.1.2010 passed by the Director General of Prisons (Jail), Punjab, 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, there is apprehension of breach of peace in the Mohalla. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 which is taken on record. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Crl.Misc.No.M-1787 of 2010 -2- Undisputedly, the petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2005 and this is his first parole after conviction. In this regard, the petitioner had submitted an application to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar, which was forwarded and recommended to the Director General of Police (Jail), Punjab, Chandigarh. However, the parole case of the petitioner has not been recommended by the office of respondent No.1 on the ground that the report of the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police is not in favour to release the petitioner on parole, which is to the effect that the complainant has objection that there is apprehension of breach of peace in Mohalla, if the petitioner is released on parole. Counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the Panchayatnama (Annexure P2), contends that the Mohallawalas and the Municipal Councillor of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar have strongly recommended that there will be no apprehension of breach of peace of any kind if the petitioner is released on parole for four weeks to meet his family members. Concededly, 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 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. 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-1787 of 2010 -3- 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. In the 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, the complainant apprehends that there will be breach of peace in the Mohalla. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that 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 suspicion made by the complainant party that the release of the convict on parole will cause breach of peace in the Mohalla. In the instant case, no 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 1.1.2010 is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the Crl.Misc.No.M-1787 of 2010 -4- 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 February 26, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE