RACHHPAL SINGH Vs. ADDL D G OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition moved before learned Single Judge of this Court while His Lordships was camping at Gurdaspur on May 17, 1996. This petition for parole was registered vide order dated 17.5.1996 and notice was ordered to be issued to the Advocate General Punjab. After service of the notice and on the request of the learned AAK for the State of Punjab time was allowed till today to file reply vide order dated 30.5.1996. Today, reply by way of affidavit of Shri Ram Lal Baddhan, Chief Welfare Officer, office of Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner sought parole under Sections 3(1)(c) of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 on the Ground of agricultural operations. The case of parole which was initiated by respondent No.2- Superintendent, Central Jail, Gurdaspur vide his letter No.3695-96 dated 14.11.1995 was declined vide order passed by respondent No.l - I.G. Prisons, Punjab and the rejection order was delivered to the petitioner on 2.5.1996 through respondent No. 2 - the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gurdaspur. Respondent No- 1 rejected the case of parole solely on the adverse report sent by the District Magistrate who, in turn, endorsed the report of the Senior Supdt. of Police, Gurdaspur. The consideration, which weighed with the District Authorities was that in the event of the convict being released on parole, the aggrieved party apprehended danger from him as the convict was reported to be a dangerous person. The report sent by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur to respondent No. 1 has been annexed with the written reply as annexure R-1/T. This Court has consistently held that the objection which has been referred to above, is not a valid and legal objection sufficient to decline the parole. Reference may be made to the judgement dated September 15, 1994, passed by a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble H.S. Bedi, J.) in Cri. M.No. 10646-M of 1994,S Teja Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., wherein it has been held that:

(2.) The view of the learned Single Judge was followed in a number of other judgements including the one delivered on November 15, 1994 in Cri.Misc. No. 14876-M of 1994, Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Sardari Lal v. State of Punjab & Anr., The intention of the State for enacting the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 is obviously to provide for temporary release of prisoners for good conduct on certain conditions and the same resulted on the recommendation of the Jail Reforms Committee. The case of the petitioner-convict can only be declined if the same is covered by the specific conditions contained in the Act in Section 6, Referred to above. The adverse report of the District Authorities which formed the basis for rejection of the case of parole by respondent No.1, cannot be termed as a legal and valid objection.

(3.) There are no other instances shown qua the petitioner-convict to debar him from seeking the parole for agricultural purposes. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner-convict is ordered to released on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a person bond and a surety bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur subject to the condition that during the period of parole the petitioner-convict shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and shall not indulge in holding but threats to the complainant-party and/or his witnesses. After the expiry of period of parole the petitioner- convict shall appear before the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur who shall send him to District Jail, Gurdaspur for serving out the life sentence which he has been serving there.