ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ashok Kumar who is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Hissar vide order dated 4.9.1982, of conviction for murder under section 302 IPC made by Sessions Judge, Hissar, applied for temporary release on parole under section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (The Act for short), for 28 days for repair of his house on 7.5.1987. His application was duly recommended by Superintendent, Central Jail, Hissar. His prayer, however, was rejected by Director General (Prisons), Haryana on 20.7.1987 on the ground that there could be danger to public peace by his release on parole. Present Crl. Writ Petition has been filed by petitioner Ashok Kumar for his such release contending that his house requires repairs and that he had maintained good conduct in jail. According to him, his case was rejected arbitrarily and for extraneous reasons.

(2.) FROM the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is obvious that conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory. He has alleged in para 4 of the petition that he maintained good conduct in jail and in reply thereto Hawa Singh, Superintendents Central Jail, Hissar on behalf of respondent 1 and 2, has clearly stated that the contents of para 4 of the petition are admitted. It is also admitted therein that this application for parole which was forwarded by Superintendent, Central Jail, Hissar was rejected on the ground that there could be a danger to public peace by release of the petitioner on parole as per recommendation of District Magistrate, Hissar. This opinion of the District Magistrate, however, is not based on any data or material No. attempt has been made to indicate as to how and order was likely to be adversely affected by the release of the petitioner on parole. Annexures R-1 to R-3 on which the opinion of the Dist. Magistrate appears to have been based, if at all he applied his mind are dated 31.5.1986. They cannot, even be treated to be relevant, as admittedly, petitioner applied for parole in May, 1987. Statements recorded about one year before could not possibly be relevant about the parole case of the petitioner. Even otherwise no opponent can relish release of a convict on parole. It is, therefore, not fair to record statements of the members of the complainant party who are aggrieved to the maximum against the convict who was responsible for the murder of their close relation. The inquiry, if any, on the part of the District Magistrate, thus, cannot be treated to have been objective. I therefore, find that denial of the petitioner's prayer was on extraneous and arbitrary ground and was not at all justified. It is well settled by now that repair of the house of the convict is covered within the scope of the term Any other sufficient cause used in clause (d) of sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Act and is a valid ground for release on parole.