KALYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Faridabad. He has been convicted and sentenced in case FIR No.315 dated 19.11.2009 registered at Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks temporary release on furlough in terms of Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) for three weeks and for setting aside the order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P1) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.1) declining temporary release on furlough to him.

(2.) The petitioner made a request to the jail authorities for his release on furlough. The request was initiated on 30.05.2014. However, his case has been rejected vide impugned order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P1) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.1). It is, inter alia, stated in the impugned order that according to police report, the conduct of the petitioner has not been found satisfactory during the period of his previous release on parole. He got involved in case FIR No.158 dated 20.06.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 448, 307, 506 and 511 IPC, besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act. Therefore, agreeing with the report of the Distict Magistrate, Faridabad, the temporary release on furlough has been declined to the petitioner.

(3.) The primary reason for declining temporary release on furlough to the petitioner is that on his previous release, he was involved in a criminal case in respect of which FIR No.158 dated 20.06.2012 was registered. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has since been acquitted in the said case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 02.04.2014 i.e., before the report dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure R1) of the District Magistrate, Faridabad. In the said report dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure R1), the fact of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is not mentioned. However, the other grounds which are mentioned are that there is likelihood of breach of peace and there is danger to the petitioner.