AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks his release on parole for four weeks for house repair under section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner is undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him under Section 302 IPC and is at present lodged in jail at Bhatinda. He applied for grant of parole for house repair for four weeks which was refused to him.

(3.) UNDER Section 6 of the Act, parole can be declined in cases when the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of State and the maintenance of public order. None of these two conditions are attracted in this case inasmuch as security of State cannot be said to be jeopardised by any stretch of imagination. The security of State is endangered by crimes of violence, intended to overthrow the Government, waging of war and rebellion against the Government, external aggression against the Government and such like acts. Similarly, maintenance of public order refers to affray, disturbance of peace and the like. It is not made clear in the report of the Government how the release is likely to attract the above two grounds referred in Section 6 of the Act. The State is not a weak organ that it cannot keep the maintenance of public order and is not in a position to keep watch on the activities of the petitioner for the purposes of maintenance of public order. The petitioner is not so strong so as to create a situation where the public order is endangered. It seems, the grounds have been taken simply to deny the petitioner his right to come out of the jail under the provisions of the Act. Enough safeguards have been provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act to resist the petitioner from committing any breach or not to comply with the conditions laid down in the Act for being released on parole. It cannot be disputed that the purpose of release on parole is very useful to change the outlook of criminal so as to make him a useful member of the society. If he is not allowed to be released on parole to repair the house, it can have a very bad effect on his attitude towards the society. The stress these days is to hate the crime and not the criminal, and to open all the possible avenues to bring him on the path which may bring peace in the society. To get rid of the criminal tendency in a criminal one of the ways is to allow him to come out of four walls of the jail and to socialize with his family members and to perform the social obligations so that he is not allowed to feel that once condemned always condemned. The criminal is not be looked down upon but he is to be given all the facilities to enable him to carry out the obligations of a social human-being. This will go a long way to bring tranquilly, peace, prosperity, happiness and goodwill in the society. Many a time, crimes are the result of social-economic milieu and these crimes can be curtailed if prisoners are allowed to bring change in their attitude towards the crime and the society. The State organs concerned with the criminal justice system are required to give a helping hand in carrying out the avid purpose of the Act. I, therefore, in view of the above discussion find that the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole and is directed to be released on parole on his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda.