LAWS(P&H)-1992-8-93

DEVINDER BANGALI Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

Decided On August 11, 1992
Devinder Bangali Appellant
V/S
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by Devinder Bangali, praying for his release on furlough under Section 4(1) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that he detenu fulfils all the requisite conditions under Section 4(1) of the Act for his release on furlough. Though the date of sentence of the detenu petitioner is mentioned as November 2, 1987 yet it is not mentioned as to how much sentence he has already undergone in jail. The learned counsel states at the bar that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on November 2, 1987 and has undergone more than 4-1/2 years in jail. He further states that the detenu has not suffered any jail punishment and his conduct in the jail has been very good. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, according to the counsel, recommended the case of the detenu for his release on furlough, to the Inspector General of Prisons, with a copy endorsed to the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. The counsel further states that the alleged verification made from Station House Officer, Police Station City and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khanna, is not based upon facts. Ram Kali, Madan Lal and Chottu Ram mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents are not in any way connected with the detenu-petitioner who is a resident of a different place. Moreover,the learned counsel submits that simple apprehension of breach of peace cannot be a ground deny furlough to the detenu-petitioner. He has cited Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1990(1) Recent C.R. 267, to substantiate his arguments.

(3.) THE withholding of concession of furlough stands on a better footing than a premature release case as the detenu had to be released for a short spell of time only. Such a vague report regarding the apprehension of breach of peace as narrated in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents is of no consequence in withholding the concession of furlough to the detnue-petitioner.