MARAH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction orders to the respondents to grant four weeks parole to the petitioner under section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 for carrying out repairs of his damaged house.

(2.) The petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by judgment dated 15-10-1993. The petitioner is in custody with effect from 18-6-1991. He applied for his release on parole for four weeks as his house is in deplorable condition for want of repairs since his wife remains ill and his children are minor. This request of the petitioner was turned down by the authorities vide letter dated 9-3-1995 on the ground that there is likelihood of the apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner is released on parole. It is stated in the petition that his case has been recommended by the jail authorities on account of his good conduct and has also been sponsored by the village panchayat and the alleged apprehension of breach of peace is without any material in support thereof.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. In the reply-affidavit the factual position stated by the petitioner has not been denied. The only ground to oppose the request of the petitioner is that according to the enquiry and report made by the District Authorities that there is apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner is released on parole. Besides this ground to oppose the request of the petitioner, the respondents have not disputed that the petitioner fulfills the necessary conditions as laid down under section 3(l)(d) of the Act. Section 6 of the Act reads as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order. It is apparent from the aforesaid provisions that if on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer so authorised is satisfied that release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of the public order then such a request necessarily has to be turned down in the present case no such particulars have been disclosed by the State in its reply as to how the release of the petitioner on parole is likely to endanger security of the State or maintenance of the public order. A similar question has been considered by this court in a number of cases. In the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Pujab it was held that what is material is whether the opposition to the release is based on certain facts including the conduct of the petitioner so as to conclude that release would endanger security of the State or would be prejudicial to public order. The same question cropped up in Tajinder Singh v. State of Haryana. In that case report of the District Magistrate endorsed by the State mentioned that release of the petitioner would endanger the maintenance of the public order. It was held that the same was without any basis and consequently the petitioner was directed to be released on parole. A similar view has been expressed recently in Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana.