LAL PASWAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) As reflected from the reply of the respondent-State, the Superintendent of the concerned jail is repeatedly writing letter to the District Magistrate, Dagbhanga (Bihar) for ascertaining the fact whether the requisite surety bonds, as per the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by this Court, have been furnished or not. It has been disclosed by Amicus Curiae that the house of the petitioner, for the repairs of which the parole of three weeks has been granted to him, is situated within the State of Bihar. As per the definition contained in Section 2(a) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners(Temporary Release) Act, 1962, the District Magistrate means the District Magistrate of the District within whose jurisdiction the prisoner after his temporary release under the Act, is likely to reside during the period of his release. Therefore the requisite surety bonds were to be furnished before the District Magistrate, Darbhanga (Bihar). The Superintendent of the jail is already communicating with the said District Magistrate (Bihar) for complying with the orders of this Court. The lapse, if any, is on the part of the relatives of the petitioner/prisoner, who are to furnish those bonds.

(3.) In these circumstances, no further action is required to be taken on the application, so moved by the petitioner/prisoner. The petitioner/prisoner be informed accordingly and he be directed to ask his relatives to furnish the requisite bonds before the District Magistrate, Darbhanga (Bihar).