JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JASWANT Singh is undergoing imprison. ment for life in Central Jail, Jalandhar after his conviction in August, 1988. He owned agricultural land in village Manga and before his conviction, be was making his livelihood from that piece of agricultural land. The land was lying waste as there was no one in the family of the petitioner to look after the agricultural operations. The father of the petitioner had expired and his mother was quite old. All his brothers were living separately. He moved an application for grant of six weeks' parole which was recommended by the Superintendent, Jail, Jalandhar but was ultimately rejected by Inspector General, Prisons, Punjab on the ground that there was apprhension of breach of peace in case the petitioner was released. The petitioner thus filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to release him on six weeks' parole for agricultural operations.

(2.) IN reply filed to the petition, the averments made in the petition were admitted, but it was contended that prayer for parole by the petitioner was rejected on the basis of adverse reports of the local Police and the District Authorities, Hoshiarpur as a number of prisoners ordered to be released on parole had absconded and did not surrender to the Jail authorities. They were believed to have joined the anti-national organisations and thus threatened the security of the State.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life in Central Jail, Jalandhar and during his stay in Jail, he has not committed any Jail offence. He remained of good conduct. The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 was enacted for the benefits of the prisoners who maintained good conduct in jail. Under sub-cause (c) of Section 3 of this Act, a prisoner can be released temporarily for ploughing sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his lard. According to the petitioner, he has no other family member who could carry on agricultural persuits and agriculture is the main source of income on which the family depended. The were fact that Some of the prisoners did not surrender before the Jail authorities, is no ground to withhold the concession of temporary release to the petitioner. The apprehension that his release may threaten the security of the State is not based on any sound ground. The petitioner is not alleged to have been involved in any untoward incident. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the grant of parole.