SUNDER Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 3(1)(c) of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relates to grant of agricultural parole to the petitioner for a period of six weeks. It was pleaded that the petitioner wants to look after agricultural operations during the sowing season.

(2.) No return on behalf of the State has been filed. However, from the copy of the rejection order, Annexure P-1, it is apparent that agricultural parole was not granted to the petitioner on the ground of disturbance of peace.

(3.) Under Section 6 of the Act, parole to the petitioner could only be refused if his released was likely to endanger the security of the State, or, the maintenance of the public order. Mere mention in the rejection order that peace was likely to be disturbed in case the petitioner is released on parole, cannot be considered sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 6 of the action asmuch as in the absence of specific mention that peace was likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, the competent authority erred in not granting agricultural parole to the petitioner.