INDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner Inderjit Singh @ Raja seeks his release on parole for four weeks for house repairs under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala, having been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 6 of TADA Act, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, and he moved the concerned authority for grant of parole which was declined.

(3.) UNDER Section 6 of the Act, parole can be declined on the ground if the release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. These two grounds are not attracted in the present case is as much as security of State cannot be jeopardised by any stretch of imagination. Security of State refers to crimes intended to overthrow the Government, waging of war or internal or 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 that how his 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 conduct the maintenance of the public order and is not in a position to keep a watch on the activities of the petitioner for the purposes of public order. The petitioner is not so strong so as to create a situation where the public order is in danger. 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. However, if the petitioner in any way violates the conditions of release on parole, enough safeguards are provided under Section 8 of the Act and Section 9 of the Act.