Criminal Writ Petition No.788 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.788 of 2010 Date of decision:- 26.8.2010 Isriel ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG Haryana. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act') to quash the impugned order dated 27.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) vide which furlough case of the petitioner was declined by the respondents. Reply has been filed by the State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Criminal Writ Petition No.788 of 2010 -2- Petitioner-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 IPC in FIR No. 124 dated 13.4.1991 registered at Police Station Nuh, Mewat, by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment dated 27.4.1999. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment was also dismissed by this Court. Hence, petitioner is undergoing the sentence in the said case. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone more than 8 years of sentence. Further contended that earlier petitioner has availed parole and furlough and however he did not surrender in time and hence his request for release on furlough has been declined by the competent authority. Further contended that however after over- stay after being released on parole, he has undergone more than 3 years of sentence and he has not committed any jail offence during the said period and hence he is entitled for release on furlough as per Section 4 of the Act. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that petitioner-accused remained absent for a period of 3 years 7 months and 18 days after being released on parole and hence his request for release on parole/furlough was rightly declined by the competent authority under Section 6 of the Act. It has also been contended that brother of the present petitioner was also convicted and sentenced in this case and he was also released on parole and however, he is still absconding. Section 4 of the Act which provides for release of a convict on furlough, read 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 Criminal Writ Petition No.788 of 2010 -3- 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 dacoity or such other offence as the State Government may, by notification, specify. (2) The period of furlough for which a prisoner is liable 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.” Further release on parole or furlough under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act can be refused by the competent authority on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Criminal Writ Petition No.788 of 2010 -4- Act 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.” Hence, in view of Section 6 of the Act competent authority can refuse to release a convict on furlough if his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. Hence, this Court is to see as to whether case of the petitioner falls under any of the said categories. Case of the petitioner does not fall under the category that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State. However, the stand of the respondent-State is that case of petitioner falls under the category that his release is likely to endanger the maintenance of public order. A careful perusal of the order, passed by the competent authority (Annexure R-2) shows that it has been mentioned that convict was released on parole alongwith his brother Pahalu in this case and however petitioner remained absconding for a period of 3 years 7 months and 18 days. It has also been stated in the report of District Magistrate, Mewat (Annexure R-1) that brother of present petitioner-accused was also released on parole and however he is still absconding. Hence, in view of these facts it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the competent authority is not in accordance with Section 6 of the Act. Rather his release on furlough is likely to endanger maintenance of public order as his brother is Criminal Writ Petition No.788 of 2010 -5- also absconding and he has remained absconding for 3 years 7 months and 18 days, before he could be arrested by the police. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the competent authority under the Act and rules in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the petition, hence, the same, is hereby dismissed. August 26, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE