SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Surinder Kumar who was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Court of Session, Ferozepur on 5-9-1981, for the offence of murder, under section 302 IPC, has moved this petition for his temporary release on parole/furlough, but has now been confined to furlough only as per statement of counsel for the petitioner at bar, under section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (The Act in short). contending that he has undergone actual sentence of more than five years, that his conduct in jail has been good and he has earned maximum annual good conduct remissions and that the rejection of his case for furlough by the authorities was illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and malacious.

(2.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents by way of an affidavit of Shri Dalip Singh, Chief Welfare Officer in the office of Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, the broad contentions of the petitioner with regard to the factual position are admitted. It is said therein that he was sentenced to life imprisonment by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on September 5, 1991 and that actual sentence undergone by the petitioner amounts to five years nine months and nine days. It is also admitted that his conduct in jail had been good. It is further contended therein that furlough case of the petitioner was initiated on July 4, 1986 and had been rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh on the basis of the report of District Magistrate, Nainital (U.P.) which has been reproduced in the reply. The said report of the District Magistrate, Nainital is not based on any material or data. He is simply apprehensive for the reason that the petitioner is a convict of serious offence of murder and tried to put off the matter on the ground that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Ferozepur (Punjab). According to him, verification regarding his release should be got made from there. Advantages allowed under the Act are based on the good conduct of prisoners and their conduct in commission of the offence for which they are convicted is totally immaterial and irrelevant. A convict is bound to have committed some offence and without !hat he could not have been convicted and confined in jail. To state that petitioner who was sentence under section 302 IPC a serious offence, could commit another murder on release, is something conjectural and beyond the scope of the Act. Apart from the fact that such supposition is not permissible and is based on surmises, it cannot be said to amount to endangering of security of State Government or the maintenance of public order so as to negative the right of the petitioner for release under section 4 of the Act. The findings of the releasing authorities thus cannot be said to be justified and are rather based on extraneous and arbitrary grounds.