NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code under the orders of the Sessions Judge dated 27.1.1989.His conduct in the jail has been good throughout.His case for grant of three weeks furlough under section 4(1)(a) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, for repairing of his house was recommended by the jail authorities but it was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, ort 27.3.1992.In this petition the grouse of the petitioner is that the order of rejection of furlough is arbitrary being based on vague report of the police. The petitioner had also appended copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat Annexure P.2 to the effect that this house does need repair and that there is no danger to the peace if the petitioner is released on furlough.

(2.) In the return filed in the affidavit of Shri Daulat Singh, Chief Welfare Officer, office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, it is maintained that the case of the petitionerfor release on furlough was rejected on 27.3.1992 on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, Bathinda. The report reads as under:Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, has reported regarding grant of furlough to the above convict. Eye witnesses Gurdial Singh and Gursewak Singh of village Laihra Mohabat have recorded their statements. They have expressed danger from the convict. The village Panchayat of Laihra Mohabat has not recommended leave to the convict.The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda has also not recommended three weeks furlough to the convict. Keeping in view the Senior Superintendent of Polices report, release on furlough is not recommended.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.