HAWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was seeking the temporary release on furlough within the contemplation of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, has been refused this concession by the jail authorities on the report made by the District Magistrate saying that the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani has reported that in the event of temporary release of the convict (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) witnesses and family members of the complainant would be put to risk and any crime may take place during the temporary release of the petitioner. Hence his case for furlough was rejected.

(2.) I had the advantage to go through para 13 of the petition moved before this Court and it is found that the petitioner was released on parole from 12.5.1994 to 10.6.1994 and no untoward incident had taken place during this period and thereafter he peacefully surrendered before the jail authorities on completion of his parole period. The Superintendent of Police in his report which is borne out as directed in the report of the District Magistrate, did not take note of this fact that the petitioner had already enjoyed right of parole for about a month in the past and no incident had taken place which in any manner could influence the mind of the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani to mention that there was danger to the complainant and the witnesses who have spoken against him during the trial and there was likelihood that some untoward incident may take place. It appears that the report has been made simply to thwart the release of the petitioner on furlough. Otherwise no record is available with the police that the petitioner, who is a convict of a murder case, his previous antecedents are bad and he being a branded criminal could at any time commit crime once released on furlough. Furlough is a mere concession to the convict who has shown his good conduct in the jail and the jail authorities grant such furlough only if the conduct of the convict remains excellent during the imprisonment. The case of the petitioner has been unnecessarily rejected on flimsy ground. The release of the petitioner is not likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, had it been so the Court could take a different view. Hence the order rejecting the case of the petitioner for furlough is quashed. The jail authorities are directed to consider his case for grant of furlough afresh and pass an appropriate order within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. A copy of the order be given to the petitioner free of costs.