TEJU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's prayer for six weeks parole for agriculture cultural purposes was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, on August 7, 1986, on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace. The report of the District Magistrate, Jind, (Annexure R. 7) on the basis of which the petitioner's prayer has been rejected, is to the effect that there is en old enmity between the petitioner and the opposite party and if the petitioner is released on parole, it is likely to endanger the maintenance of law and order. This in my opinion is not adequate ground to reject the petitioner's prayer. In the light of Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, a prisoner becomes disentitled to be released on parole if his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of the public order. It is prescribed in Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963, that the District Magistrate before making any recommendation to the jail authorities shall verify the facts and grounds on which the release has been requested and shall also give his opinion whether the temporary release on parole or furlough is opposed on grounds of prisoners presence being dangerous to the security of the state or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It becomes clear from these provisions that a prisoner's prayer for parole or furlough is to be rejected if his temporary release will pose danger to the security of the State or will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Simply on the ground that the opposite party apprehends danger from him is not adequate ground to reject his prayer.

(2.) IN these circumstances the petitioner is ordered. to be released on parole to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jind.