IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-772 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 2, 2010. Jagbir @Seth ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K.Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Sandhu, A.A.G., Haryana ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 4 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) to quash the order of respondent No.2 decling request of petitioner for his release on furlough. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. CRM No.M-772 of 2010 Admitted facts of the case are that, petitioner has been undergong sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him in FIR No.88 dated 29.05.2002, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Sadar Sonepat. Earlier he has availed emergency parole from 07.11.2009 to 22.11.2009. He applied for his release on furlough for which he was entitled under the rules and however, the same was declined on the ground that he had recently availed parole and that he may commit crime if released on furlough. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that about one year has expired since he has returned from parole. Further contends that he has already undergone about 7 years of the sentence and more than six years after conviction and that he has availed only one parole i.e. from 07.11.2009 to 22.11.2009 and nothing untoward has happened during that period and he surrendered before the jail authorities after the completion of the parole period. These facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. Section 4 of the Act deals with temporary release of convicts on furlough, which reads as under:- “4. Temporary release of prisoners on furlough. (1) The State Government or any other officer authorized by it in this behalf may, in consultation with such other officer as may be appointed by the State Government, by notification, and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily, on furlough, any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and who - 2 CRM No.M-772 of 2010 (a) has, immediately before the date of his temporary release, undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of three years, inclusive of the pre-sentence detention, if any; (b) has not during such period committed any jail offence (except an offence punished by a warning) and has earned atleast three annual good conduct remissions. Provided that nothing herein shall apply to a prisoner who- (i) is a habitual offender as defined in sub-section (3) of section 2 of Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1652; or (ii) has been convicted of dacoity or such other offence as the State Government may, by notification, specify. (2) The period of furlough for which a prisoner is eligible under sub-section (1) shall be three weeks during the first year of his release and two weeks during each successive year thereafter. (3) Subject to the provisions of clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 8 the period of release referred to in sub-section (1) shall count towards the total period of the sentence undergone by a prisoner.” Further Section 6 of the Act provides for the grounds on which the furlough can be refused by the competent authority, which reads as under:- “6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases. – Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.” 3 CRM No.M-772 of 2010 Bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act shows that release of petitioner can be refused only on the apprehension that the same is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. However, in this case, release of the petitioner has been declined merely on the ground that he has recently availed parole and that he may commit crime. However, about more than one has expired since the petitioner returned from last parole. The rejection is not based on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 6 of the Act. Nothing has been placed on record as to what was the material before the Superintendent of Police for not recommending the release of the petitioner on furlough. Rather he had not committed any crime during two weeks emergency parole from 07.11.2009 to 22.11.2009. Hence, it cannot be said that rejection of request for release of the petitioner on furlough is justified under Section 6 of the Act and hence, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.05.2009, Annexure P1 passed by the competent authority refusing grant of furlough to the petitioner is set-aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on furlough in the light of the observations of this Court made above, as per Act and Rules and instructions on the point, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 2, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4