KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Kartar Singh, a life convict, lodged in Central Jail, Ferozepur, applied for temporary release on parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, (hereinafter called the Act) for 28 days for repair/construction of his house, which, according to him, was in bad condition. His application was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, on 16th June, 1986. His prayer, however, was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab on 3rd February, 1987, on the ground that there was apprehension of breach of peace relying upon report of District Magistrate, Ferozepur. Present writ petition has been filed by Kartar Singh for his such release, contending that his house is in bad condition and requires repair/construction and that there is no other person in the family to look after the work of repair/construction of his residential house. He has further contended that his conduct in jail has been extraordinary and that he did not commit any jail offence during the entire period of sentence undergone by him, although he has actually undergone more than three years of sentence. According to him, the rejection of his case of parole by the releasing authority was arbitrary and mala fide in exercise of powers.

(2.) FROM the returns filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory. It is also admitted therein that his application for parole was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur and that the petitioner's prayer was rejected on the basis of report made by local police, which was endorsed by the Senior Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Ferozepur. The report of local police reproduced therein indicates that the members of the complainant party of the case in which the petitioner was sentenced apprehended danger at the hands of the petitioner. That opinion, however, is not based on any data or material. No attempt has been made to indicate as to how law and order was likely to be adversely affected by the release of the petitioner on parole. Apart from the vague nature of the opinion of the local police it is rather obvious that no opponent would relish release of a convict on parole. The members of the complainant's family were, therefore, bound to oppose it.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, I find that the denial of the petitioner's prayer for release on parole was based on extraneous and arbitrary grounds and was not at all justified. In the light thereof, the petitioner is ordered to be temporarily released on four weeks, parole to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Ferozepur.