RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for directing the respondents to allow parole to the petitioner for four weeks so as to enable him to repair the roof of his house. An application filed by the petitioner for grant of parole has been declined by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur (respondent No.3) vide impugned order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-1). It is, therefore, prayed that the said order be quashed.

(2.) The petitioner was arrested in case FIR No.140 dated 20.09.2006 registered at Police Station Dina Nagar District Gurdaspur for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He was tried and convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide his order dated 02.09.2008. The petitioner against his conviction and sentence, has filed Crl. Appeal No.796-DB of 2008 which is pending in this Court. While the petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gurdaspur (respondent No.2) initiated his regular parole to the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur (respondent No.3). The police verification about the conduct of the petitioner was called for by the District Magistrate Gurdaspur (respondent No.3) so as to consider his case for grant of parole. The District Magistrate, Gurdaspur (respondent No.3) after receiving the report vide his impugned recommendations dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) did not recommend the parole case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Director General of Police (Prisons) Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No.1) declined parole to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was troublesome and had a bad reputation; besides, he was allowed parole for the period from 21.08.2009 to 19.09.2009 but he absconded and surrendered on 03.12.2009. He was punished under Section 9 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (Act-for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for his failure to surrender after expiry of parole. Aggrieved against the order not granting parole to the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the parole has wrongly been declined to the petitioner and in fact in terms of Section 6(ii) of the Act, the parole could only be declined if the release of the petitioner was likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. It is submitted that the Panchayat of Bala Pindi has given a Panchayatnama (Annexure P-2) recommending the release of the petitioner on parole for which nobody would have any objection. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of parole.