MANDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Mandar Singh, a lifer confined in Central Jail, Bhatinda applied for temporary release on parole under Section 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (in short the Act) for six weeks for agricultural purposes on 4.6.1986. His application was duly recommended by Superintendent, Central jail, Bhatinda, but the same, according to him, was rejected on 18.12.1986 on the ground that there would be danger to the law and order by his release. Present criminal writ petition has been filed by Mandar Singh for his such release; contending that he owns land in his native village and that there is no adult male member in his family who could help him in agricultural operation ; and that he had maintained good conduct in jail. He has also pleaded that rejection of his case of parole by the releasing authority was arbitrary.

(2.) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory. It is also admitted therein that this case for six weeks parole was initiated by Inspector general Prisons, Punjab which rejection, according to he respondents, was made on 9.3.1987 and not on 18.12.1986. It is further alleged that it was made on the basis of report made by local police endorsed by the Senior Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Bhatinda. The above said provisions of law entitles the State Government to make consultation with the District Magistrate and not with the local police. No report of the district Magistrate has been reproduced in the reply or placed on the record. On the other hand report of SHO Police Station, Jaurkian has been produce which is not at all relevant. This Court is at a loss to see what was the conclusion of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda and whether it was based on any material or data. In the report of the SHO it is admitted that Panchayat had recommended the release of the petitioner on parole, but what weighed with him was that Bant Singh eye witness apprehended danger to his life from Mandar Singh. A member of the rival camp for obvious reasons would be the last person to agree to any such concession to the petitioner. Mention with regard to the apprehension of breach of peace is not based on any 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. I, therefore, find that the denial of the petitioner's prayer was on extraneous and arbitrary grounds and was not at all justified.