IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34027 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 23, 2008 Ajit Singh. … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. No. 60034 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-34027 of 2008 The learned counsel wants to file the amended petition. The request is allowed. The amended petition is taken on record. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Crl. Misc. No. M-34027 of 2008 The parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner was declined by the Competent Authority by relying upon a report furnished by the District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, (who, in turn, relied upon a similar report furnished by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur), to the effect that the petitioner has been found to be a man of bad character and can commit an offence on his return in the village. It was also noticed therein that nobody is pleased on (the prospect of) his release in the village. The above said averment is absolutely hypothetical. A parole plea has to be considered and disposed of in the light of the instructions / rules on the subject which are not indicated to contain a provision for disallowance of the request on such a hypothetical ground. Though the grant of parole is not a right vested in a prisoner, it also cannot be said that a parole plea can be declined on the basis of a vague apprehension indicated by the District Magistrate. The principle of transparency validates the view that the authority competent to consider the request of a prisoner under incarceration must announce to the applicant the reasons for disallowance thereof. The impugned order deserves invalidation as it fails the test of being self-contained and transparent. There is nothing indicated in the impugned order that the petitioner – prisoner had been convicted in any case or that any prosecution pending against him In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The Competent Authority is directed to dispose of the 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-34027 of 2008 parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner afresh in the light of the facts noticed above. The exercise shall be concluded within fifteen days from today. The release shall, of course, be subject to the furnishing of adequate surety etc. by the petitioner – prisoner. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 23, 2008 ( S.D. Anand) vkd Judge 3