IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No.2749 of 2011 Dated of decision:-16.12.2011 Gurmit Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. G.S. Nahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, AAG, Haryana. S.S. SARON, J. Learned State counsel has filed report of Station House Officer, Police Station Chhajli, District Sangrur regarding the marriage of Sandeep Kaur daughter of the petitioner-Gurmit Singh son of Nachattar Singh. The same is taken on record. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. The Criminal Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner- Gurmit Singh son of Nachattar Singh for directing the respondents to release him on parole for four weeks to attend the marriage of his daughter-Sandeep Kaur which is fixed for 25.12.2011. Notice of motion was issued. In the report of Station House Officer Chhajli, District Sangrur that has been filed in Court today, it is stated that ASI Mehma Singh, Police Post Mehala Chowk, Police Station Chhajli, District Sangrur was deputed to verify regarding the marriage of Sandeep Kaur daughter of the petitioner-Gurmit Singh. ASI Mehma Singh, Police Post Mehala Chowk, Police Station Chhajli, District Sangrur has verified that Gurmit Singh (Petitioner) is undergoing Crl. Writ Petition No.2749 of 2011 - 2 – imprisonment for life in District Jail, Sangrur in case FIR No.80 dated 16.05.2007, Police Station Sunam for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC; besides, Section 27 of the Arms Act. The marriage of Sandeep Kaur daughter of Gurmit Singh (petitioner) has been fixed for 25.12.2011 with Ramanjit Singh son of Gurwinder, resident of Dyalgarh Jajian, Police Station Dirba Singh. It is submitted that the local police has no objection for release of the petitioner-Gurmit Singh son of Nachattar Singh on parole. The petitioner in para 3 of his petition has stated that he had applied for grant of 4 weeks parole but no order has been passed by the authorities concerned in this regard. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only an oral prayer was made. In fact a written application was liable to be made. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the parole is likely to be declined to the petitioner in view of the proviso to Rule 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules 1963 (Rules-for short). Rule 3 of the Rules provides that no such application shall be processed by the Superintendent of Jail, unless the prisoner had maintained good conduct after his conviction atleast for four months in jail. The order of conviction and sentence in respect of the petitioner-Gurmit Singh was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 27.09.2011 and a period of four months has not lapsed after the conviction. It may, however, be noticed that Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (Act-for short) provides for temporary release on certain grounds. In terms of Section 3(1)(b), the State Government may, in consutation with the District Magistrate and Crl. Writ Petition No.2749 of 2011 - 3 – subject to such conditions and in such manner as may prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner, if the State Government is satisfied that the marriage of the prisoner’s son or daughter is to be celebrated. Therefore, in terms of Clause (b) to Section 3(1) where the marriage of prisoner’s son or daughter is celebrated is a ground for temporary release. The substantive provision of Section 3 of the Act are not liable to be circumvented by resort to the proviso to Section 3 of the Rules. This Court in the case of Satyavart versus State of Haryana 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 672, which was a case under the Haryana Act, held that restriction could not be imposed by executive instructions for seeking second parole; besides, in Kirpal Singh versus State of Haryana, 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 735 , also a case under the Haryana Act, this Court held that where the petitioner had already been granted two weeks parole and shortly afterwards he is seeking second parole to attend the marriage of his sister’s son, the second parole cannot be refused and that there was no restriction in the number of times to grant parole. The only restriction was that the total period of parole should not exceed four weeks. There is indeed no provision in the Act by which emergency parole sought by a prisoner in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act is to be withheld in view of the proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules. Therefore, the proviso to Rule 3 is not to restrict or read down the substantive provisions of the Act which specifically provide for temporary release of a prisoner where the marriage of his son or daughter is to be celebrated. In case restrictions on release in case of an emergency for children’s marriage are imposed, the same would defeat the Crl. Writ Petition No.2749 of 2011 - 4 – object and purpose of the Act. In fact release under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act is to be restricted if the State Government is satisfied that the release of the prisoner is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order as provided for under Section 6 (ii) of the Act. However, the petitioner has not submitted an application to the Superintendent, District Jail, Sangrur for his release on parole for the marriage of his daughter. In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has a right of consideration for grant of emergency parole in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act and that cannot be restricted by the proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules, it would be just and expedient that if the petitioner makes an application, in this regard, such application shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law within one week of its submission.The report of the SHO, Police Station Chhajli, District Sangrur regarding no objection has already been filed in this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner submits an application for his temporary release on parole for the celebration of the marriage of his daughter- Sandeep Kaur, such application shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law within one week from its submission. ( S.S. Saron ) Judge ( Rameshwar Singh Malik ) Judge 16.12.2011 A.kaundal