Crl.W.P. No.1432 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.1432 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2010 Umesh Gupta .....PETITIONER Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL --- Present: Mr. Sunil K. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who is presently lodged in Model Jail, Chandigarh and undergoing imprisonment for life, has filed the instant petition for quashing the impugned order dated 17.6.2010 (Annexure P1) whereby his prayer for grant of 28 days parole to take care of his ailing parents has been rejected. It has been alleged that on the prayer made by the petitioner for temporary release on parole, Superintendent, Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh recommended his case to the District Magistrate, Chandigarh, who called for the report of local police. It has been further alleged that the local police without verifying the factual position, prepared false and illegal report to Crl.W.P. No.1432 of 2010 -2- the effect that the parents of the petitioner are having no permanent address at Chandigarh. On the basis of the said report, Inspector General of Prisons, UT, Chandigarh, without application of his mind, rejected the parole case of the petitioner vide impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parents of the petitioner along with their family are residing permanently in Chandigarh for the last about 30 years. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was having sufficient proof duly issued by the competent authorities of Chandigarh Administration showing that he along with his parents is residing permanently at Chandigarh. In this regard, the petitioner has annexed the documents Annexures P-2 to P-5 with the petition. However, the same was not asked for by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner without proper application of mind and hence the same is liable to be quashed. In the written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2, which has been taken on record, it has been stated that since the parole case of the petitioner was not recommend by the competent authority on the ground that the parents of the petitioner do not have permanent address at Chandigarh, the same has been rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, UT, Chandigarh after due application of mind. It has been further averred that since the petitioner did not furnish the documents Annexures P-2 to P-5 in support of his application, the same could not be sent to the District Magistrate, Chandigarh. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Crl.W.P. No.1432 of 2010 -3- Release), Act, 1962 clearly lays down that only endangering the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order negates the right of the convict for his release under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. In our opinion, the parole case of the petitioner has been rejected arbitrarily by the respondent authorities without application of mind, particularly when the petitioner was having sufficient documentary proof issued by the different competent authorities of the Chandigarh Administration to the effect that his parents along with their family are residing permanently in Chandigarh. In our opinion, on such kind of vague report, without verifying the true facts, the benefit of parole should not be denied. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process and such benefit should not be declined merely on flimsy grounds. In the instant case, no cogent material has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.6.2010 (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 ten days rom the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 01, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) vkg JUDGE