IQBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LQBAL Singh petitioner was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. He is undergoing the sentence in District Jail, Nabha. He has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his release on furlough for three weeks in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. The petitioner alleged that he made various representations during the two years for his release on furlough and his case was initiated by Superintendent, Central Jail patiala, where he was earlier confined but his petition was rejected. His subsequent representation was also not allowed. His conduct and behaviour inside the jail remained satisfactory throughout and there was never any cause of complaint by the jail Authorities. He was thus entitled to his release on furlough.

(2.) CHIEF Welfare Officer of the office of Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab filed it reply in the form of affidavit, wherein he alleged that the petitioner had undergone more then 18 years actual sentence and his case, for his release on parole was initiated by Suprintendent, Central Jail, Patiala Which was rejected by Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana who had not recommended his release. His case, for furlough was also rejected as a large number of persons ordered to be released on parole did not surrender before the Jail Authorities after the expiry of the period of parole.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had undergone more than 8 years actual. sentence and during his detention in jail, We has not committed any jail offence. He has earned more than three annual good conduct remissions and as such he was entitled to be released on furlough. He could not be denied the concession of furlough simply because some of the persons earlier released on parole and not surrender before the Jail Authorities. The contention of the learned counsel seems to be well merited. There is nothing on record to debar the petitioner from claiming the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 referred to above. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of these provisions simply on the ground that some other persopns misused the concession of parole and absconded. I therefore, allow this petition and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough for a period of three weeks on his furnishing adequate surety as envisaged under the law, to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Jalandhar. Petition allowed.