Balbir Singh @ Bitu v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr. Sanjeev Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted under Sections 364-A, 365, 342 and 34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 17.12.2008, has filed the instant petition for grant of four weeks' parole to him to meet his family members. In the present case, the petitioner filed an application to the jail authorities for grant of four weeks parole to meet his family members. The said prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the Director General of Police (Prison), Punjab vide order 23.7.2009 on the ground that the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police has not recommended the case Crl.Misc.No.M-25712 of 2009 -2- of the petitioner for grant of parole on the ground that he is a mischievous person and might be absconded during parole period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted the Panchayatnama of his village, wherein Gram Panchayat had fully recommended the case of the petitioner for release on parole while observing that his conduct in the village remained absolutely good and that there is no apprehension of breach of peace in the village if he is temporarily released on parole. Learned counsel further argued that this fact is also corroborated by respondent No.4 while recommending the case of the petitioner for release on four weeks parole. Learned counsel further argued that the denial of benefit of parole to the petitioner under Section 3 (1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on the aforesaid ground is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. In the written statement filed by respondents No.1,4 and 5, it has been stated that since the parole case of the petitioner was not recommended by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, District Magistrate, Jalandhar by agreeing with the said report, did not recommend the case of the petitioner for release on parole. In the said report, it has been stated that the convict (petitioner) is a mischievous person and he can abscond from parole. It has been further averred in the written statement that the District Authorities are responsible for maintaining law and order and peace in their respective Districts, therefore agreeing with the adverse recommendations by the District Authorities, District Magistrate has rightly rejected the parole case of the petitioner after due application of mind. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Crl.Misc.No.M-25712 of 2009 -3- It is also conceded position that the petitioner can be temporarily released on parole for four weeks under Clause (d) of sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Act to enable him to meet his family members. 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. Such an application may also be made by an adult member of the prisoner's family. 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. 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. Proviso to this sub-rule provides that no such application shall be processed by the Superintendent of Jail, unless the prisoner had maintained good conduct after his conviction at least for four months in jail. Admittedly, the petitioner has fulfilled this condition. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner for temporary release on parole has been declined only on the ground that he is a mischievous person and might be absconded during parole period, whereas according to sub-rule(2) and Rule 3, the parole could Crl.Misc.No.M-25712 of 2009 -4- be declined where the District Magistrate on the report opined that temporary release of a convict on parole is dangerous to the security of State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In our opinion, on such kind of vague report, without any basis and 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 as a reformative process. It provides an opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen. Section 4 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative 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 flimsy grounds that the petitioner is a mischievous person and might be absconded during parole period, particularly when in the Panchayatnama, the Gram Panchayat has observed that the conduct of the petitioner in the village remained absolutely good and that there is no apprehension of breach of peace in the village if he is temporarily released on parole. 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 four weeks to meet his family members. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated

22.7.2009 (Annexure P3) is quashed and the respondents are directed to re- consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light Crl.Misc.No.M-25712 of 2009 -5- 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 January 29, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE