IDU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IDU petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment awarded to him under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgement dated 29.1.1993. It was on 6.7.1994 that he applied for grant of agricultural parole for 6 weeks under Section 3(l)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Re - lease) Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Superintendent of Police, District Jail, Bhiwani (respondent No. 2) recommended his case to the State of Haryana (respondent No.1). Respondent No. 1, on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, rejected his case for grant of agricultural parole on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace. The petitioner accordingly approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE State took the preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable as no legal or constitutional right of the petitioner has been infringed by the respondents at any stage and no legal right has accrued to the petitioner; no prisoner is entitled to parole as a matter of right; the report of the District Magistrate is a deciding factor whether or not parole be granted to a convict and, in the present case, the parole case of the recommended to the competent authority by the District Magistrate and the competent authority, i.e., the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, is. lawfully bound to take into consideration the report of the District Magistrate, while deciding the parole case of a convict; and that the parole case of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act after consideration. On merits, it was not disputed that the parole case of the petitioner was initiated on his request to obtain the report of the District Magistrate under Section 6 of the Act and the District Magistrate did not recommend the petitioner's temporary release on parole as any mishap could occur in the village. The police report is not based on vague information as the verification was conducted by the local police openly as well as secretly. It is also submitted by the respondents in their reply that the remissions stated by the petitioner were awarded to him as a matter of routine because his conduct during his incarceration in jail was good. Section 6 of the Act states that, 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 an officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. This means that the petitioner can be released under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act if his release is not likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

(3.) BEFORE coming to the merits of the petition, it must be stated that the Act was enacted as a salutary measure with a view to provide incentive to prisoners to be of good conduct while undergoing sentence of imprisonment in jail. Section 3 of the Act lays down certain grounds, such as serious illness, death of a member of the family of the prisoner, marriage of prisoner's son or daughter, for agricultural operations of the land of the prisoner of his father's undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner or for any other sufficient cause. This shows that the prisoner is entitled to be released temporarily on certain grounds as detailed in Section 3 of the Act.