Crl.W.P. No.775 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.775 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: JUNE 29, 2010 Resham Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA --- Present: Mr.H.S. Baath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/148/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P-1), whereby his prayer for temporary release on parole for four weeks to see his old wife and to manage the affairs of agricultural land, has been declined on the ground that in case the petitioner is released on parole, peace and harmony in village Thathi would be vitiated because the heirs of the deceased are still angry. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is undisputed position that after the conviction, the petitioner Crl.W.P. No.775 of 2010 -2- has undergone near-about three years of sentence and during his custody in the jail, he has not committed any jail offence and maintained good conduct throughout his custody period. It has been alleged that the brother and father of the petitioner were also convicted in the same case along with the petitioner. It has been further alleged that though the father of the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court, but being an old person, he is unable to manage the agricultural affairs. Moreover, there is no other male member in the family to look after the agricultural land. It has been specifically stated that in case the petitioner is released on parole, he will spend his parole period at village Bhangwan and will not visit his ancestral village Thathi, Hence, there will be no apprehension of disturbance of peace and harmony in village Thathi. The Gram Panchayat of village Bhangwan had also recommended for the release of the petitioner on parole. Concededly, a life convict can be temporarily released on parole for four weeks under Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Rule 3(1) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release), Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') provides that a prisoner desirous of seeking temporary release under section 3 of the Act shall make an application in Form A-1 or Form A-2, as the case may be, to the Superintendent of Jail. Such an application may also be made by an adult member of the prisoner's family. Sub-rule (2) further provides that the Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application along with his report to the District Magistrate, who after consulting the Superintendent of Police of his District, shall forward the case with his recommendations to the Inspector General. The Inspector General will then record his views on the Crl.W.P. No.775 of 2010 -3- case whether the prisoner is to be released or not and submit the same to the Releasing Authority for orders. The District Magistrate, before making any recommendation, shall verify the facts and grounds on which release has been requested and shall also give his opinion whether the temporary release is opposed on grounds of prisoner's presence being dangerous to the security of State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Proviso to this sub-rule provides that no such application shall be processed by the Superintendent of Jail, unless the prisoner had maintained good conduct after his conviction at least for four months in jail. Admittedly, the petitioner has fulfilled this condition. In the instant case, the temporary release of the petitioner on parole has been declined only on the ground that he has a wife and one small child back at home. It has been further mentioned in the Enquiry Report that though the petitioner wants to undergo the parole period at village Bhangwan, but Bhangwan is near to village Thathi, and due to this peace and harmony would be vitiated because the heirs of the deceased are still angry, whereas according to sub-rule(2) and Rule 3, the parole could be declined where the District Magistrate on the report opined that temporary release of a convict on parole is dangerous to the security of State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the reply, the respondents are relying upon the enquiry report of the Senior Superintendent of Police/District Magistrate, Amritsar. That report has not been placed on record. In this case, no cogent material has been placed on record while rejecting the parole case of the petitioner. Further, the father of the petitioner, who has been released on bail, is unable to look after the agricultural work due to his old age. Merely because village Bhangwan is near to village Thathi and due to this peace and harmony may Crl.W.P. No.775 of 2010 -4- be vitiated, because the heirs of the deceased are still angry, cannot be made the basis for rejecting the parole case of the petitioner. In our opinion, on such kind of vague report, without any solid reasons and foundation, the benefit of parole, to which a convict can avail on fulfilling certain conditions, should not be denied. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, ordinarily, this benefit should not be declined merely on the apprehension raised by the complainant party that the release of the convict on parole will endanger their life or cause breach of peace in the village. In the instant case, no such strong material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for four weeks to to see his old wife and to manage the affairs of agricultural land. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P1) is quashed and the respondents are directed to re- consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light of the observations made in this order and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE June 29, 2010 ( H.S. BHALLA ) vkg JUDGE