GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

(2.) THE petitioner Gurcharan Singh son of Sadha Singh has applied for parole for four weeks to enable him to carry out repairs of his house which has been damaged. The petitioner was tried on the charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dated 3.2.1994. The petitioner is undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment in the Central Jail, Bathinda. He has already undergone sentence for about five years and nine months during which period he has remained inside the jail. In the recent period of rains, the house of the petitioner was substantially damaged. There is none excepting the petitioner to look after the repairs of the house. The family of the petitioner consists of his wife and six small children. The case of the petitioner for parole for house repairs was initiated by respondent No. 2 the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, and was recommended by him to the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1). Upon the report revived from the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police wherein the parole was resisted on the ground that the aggrieved party as well as the witnesses apprehended danger on the petitioner -convict coming out of jail on parole and further there was likelihood or apprehension of breach of peace, consequent upon the release on parole of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 rejected his case for release on parole. The petitioner has now approached this Court by filing this petition under Court by filing this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for the said purpose, for a period of four weeks.

(3.) NOTICE of motion was issued to the respondents, who appeared and filed reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Labh Singh alias Lal Shah, Chief Probation Officer, Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, alleging inter alia that the case of the petitioner for release on parole was considered thoroughly and rightly rejected keeping in view the adverse recommendation of the district authorities referred to above.