Crl.W.P.No.1719 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.W.P.No.1719 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 27, 2010 Rupinder Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 30.8.2010, Annexure P2, passed by respondent no.1, vide which request of petitioner for her release on furlough under Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') has been rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in FIR No.145 dated 7.10.2003, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar. Petitioner submitted an application in the office of respondent no.2, i.e., Superintendent, District Jail, Yamunanagar, for granting furlough under Section 4 of the Act. Release of petitioner on furlough was duly recommended by Superintendent, District Jail, on the plea that she was entitled as per Rules. Recommendation was also made by District Magistrate, Yamunanagar, for her release on furlough. However, her request for release on furlough was declined by Divisional Commissioner, Ambala, vide impugned order, Annexure P2. Crl.W.P.No.1719 of 2010 (O&M) -2- It is pertinent to reproduce Section 4 of the Act, which provides release of a prisoner on furlough. The same reads as under:- “4. Temporary release of prisoners on furlough.-(1) The State Government or any other officer authorised by it in this behalf may, in consultation with such other officer as may be appointed by the State Government, by notification, and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily, on furlough, any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and who- (a) has, immediately before the date of his temporary release, undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of three years, inclusive of the pre-sentence detention, if any; (b) has not during such period committed any jail offence (except an offence punished by a warning) and has earned atleast three annual good conduct remissions; Provided that nothing herein shall apply to a prisoner who- (i) is a habitual offender as defined in sub-section (3) of section 2 of Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952; or (ii) has been convicted of decoit or such other offence as the State Government may, by notification, specify. (2) The period of furlough for which a prisoner is eligible under sub-section (1) shall be three weeks during the first year of his release and two weeks during each successive year thereafter. (3) Subject to the provisions of Clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 8 the period of release referred to in sub-section (1) shall count towards the total period of the sentence undergone by a prisoner.” Furlough can be declined to petitioner-accused on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. “Prisoners not entitles to be released in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no Crl.W.P.No.1719 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 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 Government or the maintenance of public order.” A perusal of the impugned order shows that the case of petitioner for her release on furlough has been declined merely on the ground that she had availed parole for the period from 28.5.2010 to 26.6.2010. No other reason for rejecting her case for release on furlough has been given. Even perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed in a mechanical way as it has been mentioned in the order that convict has availed parole recently and hence her parole case is filed. However, it was not a parole case, which is pending before the authority. It was a case of furlough. Hence, in view of these facts, the impugned order rejecting furlough case of the petitioner by the competent authority cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same is, hereby, set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of present petitioner for her release on furlough in the light of observations of this Court made above, as per the Act and the Rules, and on usual undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. 27.10.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.