CONVICT MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MALKIAT Singh Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 29.1.1991. He has been in jail since 29.1.1991. Prior to that, he was in jail as an undertrial.

(2.) THROUGH this petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, he has prayed for the grant of 4 weeks parole to him so that he is able to see his family and attend other affairs of the family and repair his dwelling house. His prayer for his release on parole was rejected by the respondents on flimsy grounds that if he was released on parole, he would pose serious insecurity to those at whose instance he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. It is prayed that order Annexure P1 passed by the Addl. Director General (Prisons), Punjab is unjust, and is against the Provisions of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary) Release, Act 1962. So long as he has been in jail, he has maintained utmost orderly behaviour. He has not committed any jail offence. It was because of his good conduct in jail that he was awarded some remissions. 4. Respondents contested this prayer of the convict-prisioner urging that he is a dangerous man. If he is allowed parole, there would be security risk at his hands to those at whose instance, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. His prayer for parole was justifiably declined by the respondents who acted on the report of the District Magistrate. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab and have gone through the record. Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary) Release, Act, 1962 lays down 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 any Officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to "endanger the security of the State" or the "maintenances of public order". The words, endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, used in this section are quite significant. Apprehension of danger to an individual cannot be equated with danger to the security of the State or maintenance of public order. "Danger to the security of the State" connotes some danger to the very concept of the State as understood by political scientists in Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1988(1) CLR 124. It was held that "endangering security of any individual does not in any way operate as a legal obstacle in the way of the prisoner to claim his release on parole. It is endangering security of the State or the maintenance of public order which can stand in the way of a prisoner asking for his release on parole. 6. There can be no danger to the security of the State, if there is apprehension of danger to, the security of an individual or a group of individuals. There will be no disturbance of public order if there is apprehension of danger to and individual. 7. It is human problem. Petitioner-convict has been in jail since before January 19, 1991. He is a human being. He needs to be in the company of his family for sometime so as to provide them succour also. 8. Keeping in view humanitarian considerations, this petition is accepted and is allowed two weeks parole. He will execute necessary bond before the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. Period of parole will commence from the date when this order reaches the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana. He will surrender in Central Jail, Ludhiana after the period of parloe is over.