IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 29, 2010. Rann Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Navkesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 4(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) for grant of furlough to the petitioner for a period of three weeks. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Petitioner is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in FIR No.32 under Sections 302/148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, registered at CRWP No.1273 of 2010 Police Station Mohana, District Sonepat. He was admitted in District Jail, Karnal on 08.03.2010 on transfer from District Jail, Sonepat. He has already undergone 5 years 8 months 8 days of sentence including undertrial period as on 08.09.2010. He applied for his release on furlough to Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal under Section 4 of the Act as he was entitled for being release on furlough. His case was initiated by Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal. However, District Magistrate, Sonepat did not recommend for his release on the basis of report given by Superintendent of Police on the plea that other party is also residing in the village and some crime may take place. Hence, in view of the said report Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who is competent authority in this case, rejected the furlough case of petitioner, vide order Annexure R2. Section 4 of the Act provides for temporary release of convicts on furlough, which reads as under:- “4. Temporary release of prisoners on furlough. (1) The State Government or any other officer authorized 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. 2 CRWP No.1273 of 2010 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, 1652; 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 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.” Further Section 6 of the Act provides for the grounds on which the furlough can be refused by the competent authority, which 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 an officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.” Bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act shows that release of petitioner can be refused only on the ground that the same is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. In this case, as per admission on behalf of the State, the petitioner had availed four weeks parole from 19.01.2010 to 17.02.2010 and however, no untoward incident had happened. He surrendered before 3 CRWP No.1273 of 2010 Superintendent, District Jail after availing the parole even though the other party was living in the said village. Nothing has been placed on record as to what was the material before the Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate, Sonepat for not recommending the release of the petitioner on furlough. Hence, it cannot be said that rejection of release of the petitioner on furlough is justified under Section 6 of the Act and hence, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.05.2010, Annexure R2 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on furlough is set-aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on furlough in the light of the observations of this Court made above, as per Act and 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 29, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4