RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has been convicted under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the prayer of temporary release of the petitioner on furlough has been declined on the ground that his release may result in breach of peace.

(2.) In the instant case, the petitioner applied for grant of three weeks temporary release on furlough under Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which empowers the State Government to temporary release a Crl. Misc. No. M-29951 of 2009 -2- prisoner on furlough, who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and who has undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of three years, inclusive of the pre-sentence detention, if any, and during such period, he has not committed any jail offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner fulfills all the conditions imposed under Section 4 of the Act, as he has undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of three years. His conduct throughout the said period remained good and he has not committed any jail offence. In spite of that, respondent No.1 has declined the benefit of temporary release on furlough to the petitioner on the unsustainable ground that his release will result into breach of peace or there can be loss to the life and liberty of the opposite party. Learned counsel, while referring to the written statement, submits that when the petitioner had availed four weeks parole from 25.3.2009 to 23.4.2009 under Section 3 of the Act, he did not indulge in any illegal activity. During that period, he neither caused any breach of peace nor threatened the life and liberty of the complainant party. Thus, the apprehension shown by the respondent, while declining the temporary release of the petitioner on furlough is mis-founded and without any substance. Therefore, rejection of the temporary release of the petitioner on furlough on the said ground is totally illegal and arbitrary and against the spirit and object of the aforesaid provisions of law. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order as well as the written statement, we are of the opinion Crl. Misc. No. M-29951 of 2009 -3- that rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for temporary release on furlough on the ground that his release will result into breach of peace or there may be loss of life and liberty to the opposite party is totally arbitrary. The temporary release on furlough is a wing of the reformative process, which has been recognized in the Act, taking into consideration the evolution of changing attitudes of the society towards crime and criminals. The release of a prisoner on furlough provides an opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen and to enable him to have family association and to avoid ill effects of continuous prison life. The grant of furlough is essentially an executive function, on fulfilling certain conditions imposed by the statute or the rules. The said exercise of power is subject to judicial review, when the temporary release on furlough is arbitrarily declined to a prisoner. This Court in Aman Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 287 has held that the temporary release on furlough cannot be denied/refused to a prisoner on the mere fact that his release may cause breach of peace, particularly when such a prisoner was earlier released on parole and nothing untoward incident happened during that period. It was further held that Section 4 of the Act certainly indicates more liberal approach in permitting a prisoner to be released on furlough for the restricted period as specified in the provisions of the said section. The purpose of enacting this provision of the Act is not to deprive a convict of social and family life in its entirety. In the instant case, respondent No.1 has denied the benefit of temporary release on furlough to the petitioner only on Crl. Misc. No. M-29951 of 2009 -4- the ground that his release would result into breach of peace. In our opinion, keeping in view the past conduct of the petitioner, when he was released on parole for four weeks, the apprehension of the respondent with regard to breach of peace is totally baseless and without any foundation. Thus, we are of the opinion that respondent No.1 has arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner for his temporary release on furlough, as he fulfills all the terms and conditions, imposed by Section 4 of the Act. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the respondents are directed to re- consider the prayer of the petitioner regarding his temporary release on furlough under Section 4 of the Act, within a period of two weeks from today, and pass necessary order in accordance with law, while keeping in view the aforesaid observations.

(3.) Petition is allowed, accordingly.