PYARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PYARA Singh, petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court seeking quashing of the order dated 28.9.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh rejecting his prayer for parole and directions to the respondents to release him on parole for a period of four weeks under Sections 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioner, who is presently confined in Maximum Security Jail, Nabha, is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in case bearing FIR No. 4 dated 14.1.1990 registered under Sections 506, 395, 365, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA') with Police Station, Ballianwali as per order of sentence dated 22.7.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Designated Court, Bathinda and also rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in case bearing FIR No. 6 dated 15.1.1990 registered under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Nehianwala as per order dated 22.7.2000 passed by the Additional Judge Designated Court, Ferozepur at Bathinda. The petitioner had applied for his release on parole for house repairs for four weeks under the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Act on the ground that his house needed urgent repairs to be carried out and there was no one except his old parents to look after the affairs of his family. In support of the stand taken, Panchnama (Annexure P-2) submitted by Sukhdev Kaur, mother of the petitioner has been placed on record. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda did not recommend his case for release because of his association with the extremists and apprehending that if he was released on parole it would create law and order problem and any untoward incident could also take place. Consequently, the Inspector General, Jail Department, Punjab, Chandigarh had rejected his prayer as per communication No. 12523 G.I./P.1 R-9-2P 846 dated 4.10.2001 (Annexure P-1). Hence, the present petition.

(3.) I heard learned Counsel representating the petitioner at length. None had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents at the time of arguments.