Crl. W.P.No.542 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. W.P.No.542 of 2011 Date of decision:- 5.4.2011 Rashpal Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Reply has been filed by the State counsel on behalf of the respondents and has been taken on the record. The petitioner, Rashpal Singh, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the impugned order Annexure P/1, vide which his prayer for parole was rejected without giving any specific reason and releasing him on parole for four weeks' under Section 3 (1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for repairs of his house. This petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Amritsar, and made a request to the jail authorities for the grant of four weeks' parole for the repairs of his house, the roof of which has already been fallen down. The gram panchayat also recommended his case for parole and certified the fact that there was no apprehension of breach of peace in case of his temporary Crl. W.P.No.542 of 2011 -2- release. He is law abiding citizen and there is no complaint against him, nor he committed any jail offence. His conduct and behavior in the jail was good through out the period of his detention. In the reply submitted by the respondents, the facts as stated in the petition have not been denied. They pleaded that before releasing any prisoner on parole, the recommendation report of the concerned District Magistrate is mandatory. The District Magistrate, Kapurthala, made verification through S.S.P Kapurthala and thereafter submitted adverse report to the effect that he is dangerous type of person, who can go abroad with the help of travel agent, while on parole, in an illegal manner and that there is danger to the security of State and apprehension of breach of peace. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon D.B judgment dated 26.4.2010 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-34013 of 2009 (Varun @ Gullu Vs. State of Haryana & Others), in support of his submissions that the concerned authority was required to give the reasons for coming to the conclusion that the release of petitioner on parole would be dangerous to the security or would result in the breach of peace. Such an order, which is not speaking one, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and that the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole forthwith for the repairs of his house. This Court do agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a speaking order was required to be passed before refusing the prayer of the petitioner to be released on parole, to which he was entitled to under the Act. A perusal of the impugned order Annexure P/1 makes it clear that one of the ground for refusing parole was the security Crl. W.P.No.542 of 2011 -3- of the State and the apprehension of the breach of peace. As per Section 3 (2) of the Act it is for the District Magistrate to give his opinion whether the temporary release on parole is passed on the grounds of prisoners presence being dangerous to security of the State or prejudicial to maintenance of the public peace. Thus the parole can be refused in case such a report is made by the District Magistrate. But the question arises whether the competent authority was required to record the reasons and to pass a speaking order before refusing the parole to the petitioner on that ground. In the above said judgment, it was held that the apprehension of breach of peace can be dealt with by the State by invoking other provisions of the statute such as Section 107, 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other modes. The rejection of the claim of the prisoner for the reason apprehending breach of peace is unwarranted, untenable and the result of non-application of mind. It is to be noted in the present case parole was refused not only on the ground of breach of peace, but was also refused on the ground of danger to the security of the State. It was held in the above said judgment that any mechanical rejection of the request for release on parole such as for breach of peace is unwarranted by law and competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order, whenever it is to decline the request for temporary release on specific finding of danger to the State or public order. No reasons were recorded in the impugned order for coming to the conclusion that release of the petitioner on parole would endanger the security of the State and would result in the breach of peace. The competent authority was required to record the reasons before coming to that conclusion and was to pass a speaking order. The same having not been Crl. W.P.No.542 of 2011 -4- done, itself is a ground for setting aside the order Annexure P/1 and the same is hereby quashed. The competent authority is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order while deciding the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for the repair of his house. The order is to be passed within the time frame laid down in the above said judgment. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. April 5, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge