IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. 1578 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 13, 2010. Surjit Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. O.P.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short the ‘Act’) for releasing the petitioner on parole for four weeks to enable him to meet his family members and for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.07.2010, Annexure P1 passed by respondent No.2. Reply and better reply have been filed on behalf of respondent- State. CRWP No.1578 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Admitted facts are that, present petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in FIR No.130 dated 07.06.1996, under Sections 302/460/307 IPC, Police Station Sadar Fazilka by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 08.12.2001. He was released on bail on 03.03.2006. Appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court on 02.03.2009 and he was readmitted in the jail on 02.11.2009. Request of petitioner for releasing him on four weeks parole was initiated by jail authorities and however, District Magistrate, Shri Ganga Nagar did not recommend the parole to the petitioner on the ground that opposite party can commit his murder with an intention to take revenge. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict can be released on parole which reads as under:- “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds:- (1) The State Government may in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section(2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that:- (a) a member of the prisoner's family had died or is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation [on his land or any other land cultivated by him] and no friend of the prisoner 2 CRWP No.1578 of 2010 or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; or (d) it is desirable so to do for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub section (1), two weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c ) of sub-Section (1), six weeks. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where a prisoner undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment, is to be released on the ground specified in Clause (d) of sub-section (1); he may be released for a period of six months or less in parts, during the five years. (3) The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may by notification authorise any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein.” Parole can be declined to a convict on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under:- 6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary or where prisoners are not to be released.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4.- (i) it shall not be necessary to consult the District Magistrate where the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner maintained good conduct during the period of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid sections; and (ii) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, where 3 CRWP No.1578 of 2010 consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order.” Hence, a careful perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that parole can be refused if release of a convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Hence, this Court is to see as to whether the impugned order passed by the competent authority is covered by any of such grounds. Perusal of impugned order, Annexure P1 passed by competent authority shows that release of petitioner on parole has been refused on the plea that opposite party can commit his murder to take revenge. However, the plea is not based on any material. Case of petitioner was duly recommended by Superintendent Jail for his release on parole as he was entitled for the same as per the Act, the rules and the instructions on the point. His conduct in the jail also remained good. Even as per reply filed on behalf of Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur where petitioner has been presently lodged, petitioner has availed six paroles of four weeks each i.e. from 22.08.2002 to 20.09.2002; from 01.05.2003 to 30.05.2003; from 10.12.2003 to 08.01.2004; from 11.08.2004 to 09.09.2004; from 30.05.2005 to 28.06.2005 and from 05.12.2005 to 03.01.2006. He has also availed a furlough of three weeks from 02.09.2002 to 24.09.2002. It is further mentioned in the reply that he has not availed any parole since his readmission in the jail on 09.11.2009. Petitioner never jumped bail. He never committed any offence in the jail. He availed six paroles of four weeks each and a three weeks’ furlough. In view of the fact that behaviour of 4 CRWP No.1578 of 2010 the petitioner in the jail remained satisfactory, it cannot be said that impugned order refusing release of petitioner on parole is justified on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. 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 14.07.2010, Annexure P1 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on parole is set-aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 13, 2010. JUDGE 'om' Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes / No 5