Crl.W.P.No.958 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.W.P.No.958 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 8, 2010 Ranjit Singh .....Petitioner v. The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.A.S.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of direction to the respondents to allow release of petitioner on parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act'). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Admitted facts are that petitioner has been undergoing sentence of ten years in FIR No.54 dated 7.5.1994, under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. Petitioner had applied for grant of four weeks parole to respondent no.2, i.e., Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, who recommended the same to District Magistrate, Amritsar, as petitioner was entitled as per the Rules for parole. However, District Magistrate did not recommend his release on parole on the plea that petitioner was in jail for a few months only and hence period of sentence undergone was less. It has also been mentioned in the order passed by District Magistrate, Amritsar, Annexure R1, that respectables of the village have also taken responsibility for his release on parole. Hence, on the basis of this report of District Magistrate, the request of petitioner for release on parole has been declined by the competent authority, i.e., Director General of Police, Punjab, vide Annexure Crl.W.P.No.958 of 2010 (O&M) -2- R-2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that as per the Rules, petitioner is entitled for release on parole after undergoing four months of the sentence and however, he has already completed the four months of sentence, when he applied for parole and when his case was recommended by Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar. It is further contended that more-over now petitioner is in custody for the last about more than one year, i.e., he is in custody since 12.8.2009. These facts have not been disputed by learned State counsel. A convict is entitled for release on parole under Section 3 of the Act. The same reads as under:- “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds:- (1) The State Government may in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that:- (a) a member of the prisoner's family had died or is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation [on his land or any other land cultivated by him] and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; or (d) it is desirable so to do for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the Crl.W.P.No.958 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ground specified in clause (a) of sub section (1), two weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub- section (1), four weeks; and (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c ) of sub-Section (1), six weeks. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where a prisoner undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment, is to be released on the ground specified in Clause (d) of sub-section (1); he may be released for a period of six months or less in parts, during the five years. (3) The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may by notification authorise any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein.” Parole can be declined to petitioner-accused on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under: “6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary or where prisoners are not to be released.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4.- (i) it shall not be necessary to consult the District Magistrate where the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner maintained good conduct during the period of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid sections; and (ii) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Crl.W.P.No.958 of 2010 (O&M) -4- Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order.” Hence, a careful perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that parole can be refused if release of a convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Hence, this Court is to see as to whether the impugned order passed by the competent authority is covered by any of the such grounds. However, in this case request of petitioner for release on parole has been declined not any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. Rather the same has been declined merely on the ground that he had been in jail for a few months only. Hence, in view of these facts, the impugned order rejecting parole 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 his release on parole 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. 8.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.