NISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application for parole was moved by the petitioner - a life convict - for his release on parole within the purview of Section 3(i)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, for a period of four weeks to conduct the repairs of his house which has partly fallen down. In this behalf proceedings were initiated by the petitioner before the competent authority and ultimately his application was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, keeping in view the adverse recommendations of the District authorities who had reported that there was a danger of breach of peace to the people on whose evidence the petitioner was convicted and sentenced.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and also bestowed my thoughtful consideration over the material on the record of the file. I had also gone through the relevant provisions of law which provides that the State Govt. may in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied. The petitioner is seeking this remedial relief within the ambit of sub-section (d) of Section 3(i) of the Act, on the ground that he has to repair his dilapidated house because there is none else to look after his house. In this regard no report is found to have been received by the Inspector General of Prisons from the District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police concerned to the effect that the house of the petitioner has not fallen down, which requires immediate repairs, instead without any proof on the file, the district authorities reported back to the Inspector General of Prisons that in case the convict is released on parole there is every likelihood that breach of peace may take place. This report of the District Administration appears to be fallacious and devoid of wisdom for there is danger to the people on whose evidence the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced. It is the duty of the district administration to provide protection to the citizens within the territorial jurisdiction. No doubt, no body can be released on parole if his release is detrimental to the safety of national integrity of the Country or he is a declared terrorist whose presence in the area can cause havoc among the masses and may create disorder in the society. The mere apprehension that some body apprehended breach of peace, is no ground on which the parole can be refused to a person who otherwise is covered by the terminology of the Act and is entitled to such release within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act.