Crl.W.P. No.66 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.66 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 11, 2011 Rajinder Kumar @ Banti .....PETITIONER Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. Sunil K. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondents/U.T. Chandigarh. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who is a life convict and undergoing the imprisonment in Model Jail, Chandigarh, has filed the instant petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure P1), whereby the prayer of the petitioner to release him on parole for 28 days to meet his parents, has been rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that there is an apprehension of the convict skipping the parole. Pursuant to notice, a reply by way of affidavit of Sunil Bhatia, Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh along with documents Annexures R/1 to R/3 has been filed, which is taken on record. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Crl.W.P. No.66 of 2011 -2- It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for his temporary release on parole on 31.5.2010, which was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh. In pursuance of the recommendation, District Magistrate, U.T., Chandigarh sought the report from the local police. It is further the case of the petitioner that the local police, without verifying the antecedents of the petitioner, made a false report to the effect that in case the petitioner is temporarily released on parole, there is apprehension of his skipping the parole. On the basis of the said false report, respondent No.1 has arbitrarily and without any justification or reasoning rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release on parole. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.1 without any basis and that too, without assigning genuine reasons therefor. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner is owner in possession of House No.916, Phase-I, Ramdarbar, Chandigarh and has been residing permanently with his family, including wife, minor child, old widowed mother and brother. The petitioner wants to meet his widowed mother, therefore, he had applied for his release on parole and the respondent-authority has arbitrarily rejected his prayer totally without application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-UT Chandigarh contended that according to Annexure R-3, District Magistrate, Chandigarh, on the basis of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, UT, Chandigarh, had not recommended the parole release case of the petitioner as both the complainant party and the petitioner are residing in the Crl.W.P. No.66 of 2011 -3- same locality and in case the petitioner is released on parole, there is great apprehension of breach of peace. He further argued that on the aforesaid ground the parole can be declined to a convict under Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 in case the release of the convict on parole is endangering the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that 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, this benefit should not be declined. This Court in Jai Ram Versus State of Punjab, 2001(2) RCR (Crl.) 158 has held that parole can be refused where release of the prisoner is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. The mere apprehension in the minds of the opposite party that the release of the prisoner would endanger their lives would not constitute a valid ground for denying parole to the petitioner. Further in Boota Singh Versus State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Crl.) 155 this Court has held that breach of peace is not a good ground for refusing the grant of parole to a convict. In the instant case, no strong material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for 28 days to meet his widowed mother. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated Crl.W.P. No.66 of 2011 -4- 18.11.2010 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 February 11, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE