Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life, and is undergoing his sentence in Central Jail, Bathinda, has filed the instant petition directing the respondents to release him on parole for six weeks to enable him to look after his agriculture works. Pursuant to the notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, which is taken on record. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner is lodged in jail since 8.11.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the conduct of the petitioner is good in jail and he has not committed any jail offence. It has been alleged Crl.Misc.No.M-23254 of 2009 -2- that the petitioner filed an application for grant of agriculture parole under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). This is the first application for parole filed by the petitioner after his conviction vide judgment dated 29.10.2008. However, respondent No.1 did not recommend the parole case of the petitioner keeping in view the report of the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Polic, Bathinda to the effect that the petitioner had killed his brother and sister-in-law, and injured his nephew over property dispute, which is still pending, and also that the complainant is having danger from the petitioner. It has been alleged that the petitioner is having agriculture land in his own name and he is required to take care of his agricultural crops. Counsel prays that the petitioner undertakes that he will surrender before the jail authority after the expiry of parole period and will not misuse the concession of parole. Therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for the aforesaid purpose. In the written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2, it has been stated that since the parole case of the petitioner was not recommended by the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, respondent No.1 by agreeing with the said report, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release on parole. In the said report, it had been stated that the convict (petitioner) had killed his brother and sister-in-law and also injured his nephew over property dispute, which is still going on between them, and further that the complainant is apprehending danger to his life at the hands of the petitioner. As per Section 3(1)(c) of the Act, the petitioner can be Crl.Misc.No.M-23254 of 2009 -3- temporarily released on parole to enable him to perform agriculture works. Rule 3(1) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release), Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') provides that a prisoner desirous of seeking temporary release under section 3 of the Act shall make an application in Form A-1 or Form A-2, as the case may be, to the Superintendent of Jail. Sub-rule (2) further provides that the Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application along with his report to the District Magistrate, who after consulting the Superintendent of Police of his District, shall forward the case with his recommendations to the Inspector General. The Inspector General will then record his views on the case whether the prisoner is to be released or not and submit the same to the Releasing Authority for orders. Further, the District Magistrate, before making any recommendation, shall verify the facts and grounds on which release has been requested and shall also give his opinion whether the temporary release is opposed on grounds of prisoner's presence being dangerous to the security of State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner for temporary release on parole has been declined only on the ground that he had killed his brother and sister-in- law, and injured his nephew over property dispute, which is still pending between them, and also that the complainant is having danger from the petitioner. In our opinion, on such kind of vague report, which is without any foundation, the benefit of parole, to which a convict can avail on fulfilling certain conditions, should not be denied. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen. Section 4 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative Crl.Misc.No.M-23254 of 2009 -4- measure, as a prisoner has to show good conduct in the jail. This concept has been introduced 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, such benefit should not be declined merely on the aforesaid ground. In the instant case, no contrary material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for. six weeks to enable him to look after his agriculture works. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated

27.7.2009 (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 two weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 05, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE