LAKHVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner has moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 6 weeks to enable him to perform agricultural operations in his agricultural land in village Mahima Sarja, Police Station Nahianwala, Tehsil and District Bathinda (Punjab). The petitioner was tried on the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted by the trial Judge on 28.9.1982. The case of parole for agricultural purposes was initiated by respondent No. 2, Superintendent, Central Jail Bathinda and respondent No. 1, Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh on 20.3.1995. Respondent No. 1, however, rejected the case of release of parole and the petitioner was informed about it, in the 3rd week of May, 1995, by respondent No. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that as far his knowledge is concerned, his parole case was rejected on the ground that if he released on parole, there will be apprehension of breach of peace and the opposite party and the witnesses who were examined at the trial by the accused will apprehend of danger from the petitioner while on parole. The contention of the petitioner is that under Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 inter alia provides that the prisoners are not entitled to get benefit of the Act. In case where the State Government order any Officer authorised by the State Government is satisfied that the release of the petitioner will endager the security of the State or maintenance of the public order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the expression used under Section 6 of the Act do not cover the ground on which the parole of the petitioner has been rejected. Consequently, it has been prayed that the petitioner who is not accused of committing any jail offence while being locked in jail is entitled to be released on parole for agricultural purposes under the said Act.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. The ground of rejection referred to in the reply filed by respondents 1 and 2 came up for consideration before a learned Singh Judge of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 10546-M of 1994 (Teja Singh v. State of Punjab and another) decided on 15.9.1994 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held as under :-