Crl.W.P.No.1212 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P.No.1212 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 08, 2010 Angrej Ram .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Ms. Bhupinder Pal Kaur Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pavit Singh Mattewal, Addl.A.G., Punjab. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted in case FIR No.48 dated 12.03.2007 registered under Sections 302/34 IPC at Police Station Banga, District Nawanshahr, and undergoing imprisonment for life in Central Jail, Ludhiana, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to release him on parole for four weeks to enable him to meet his family members, as per the provisions contained in Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. In the petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner had submitted an application to the jail authorities for grant of parole for four weeks for the aforesaid purpose. Along with the application, the petitioner had also submitted a Panchayatnama from the Gram Panchayat, which Crl.W.P.No.1212 of 2010 -2- recommended the parole case of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that his parole case was duly recommended and was sent to the Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab, Chandigarh as well as to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate in turn sent the parole case of the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, who, after getting the verification done through the local police, submitted his report vide letter dated 12.1.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.1, without application of mind, has rejected the parole case of the petitioner. It has been alleged that the copy of the rejection order has not been supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel further argued that there is no material on the record on the basis of which it can be inferred that in the event of release of the petitioner on parole, there is possibility of breach of peace. Hence, it has been prayed that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and a direction be issued to release the petitioner on parole. Pursuant to notice, reply by way of affidavit of Assistant Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the reply, it has been averred that the District Magistrate, after agreeing with the adverse recommendations from the District Police, had not recommended the parole case of the petitioner. In his report, the District Magistrate reported that in case the petitioner is released on parole, there is a danger to the security of the State and apprehension of breach of peace. It has been further reported that since in two other cases registered against the petitioner, he is on bail, therefore, there is possibility of his jumping the bail in the event of his release on parole in the instant case. Crl.W.P.No.1212 of 2010 -3- As per the verification made by the District Magistrate, five cases are registered against the petitioner, out of which, in three cases the petitioner has been convicted and in two cases, the trial is going on. Along with the reply, the respondents have annexed the copy of the order dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure R-2), whereby the parole case of the petitioner has not been recommended by the District Magistrate. In the said order, the detail of the five cases registered against the petitioner has been mentioned. In the said order, it has been observed that in the event of release of the petitioner on parole, the petitioner can jump his bail in other cases. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this petition. In our opinion, release of such a person on parole, who is a habitual offender and has been involved in five criminal cases, would certainly amount to endangering the law and order. Therefore, in our opinion, the authorities have rightly rejected the parole case of the petitioner. Thus, we do not find any reason to quash the impugned order. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 08, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE