MAJOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Major Singh who was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 9 -12 -1982 for the offence of murder by Sessions Judge, Sangrur has moved this petition for his temporary release on furlough He has contended that his case falls within four corners of section 4, of Punjab, Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter called,the Act) and his conduct in jail had been good. It is further contended that for this said reasons be is entitled to temporary release on furlough and refusal thereof by the releasing authority is arbitrary and capricious. A Panchayatama from the entire Panchayat of village Khumberwal is also attached with the petition wherein his release on furlough has been strongly recommended further certifying that there is on apprehension of breach of peace and danger to the public order and tranquility.

(2.) IT is mentioned in para 2 of the petition that petitioner is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life which necessarily amounts to imprisonment for more than five years as contemplated under sub -section (1) of section 4 of the Act. It is further mentioned in that para that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a period of four years and eleven months excluding remissions, which obviously amounts to a period of more than three years as provided in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. It is also contended In that para that the detenu has never committed any jail offence and no jail punishment has ever been award, to him during the entire period of his imprisonment. These facts are not disputed in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. On the other hand, para 2 of the petition has been admitted. In reply to paras 3 to 6 it is further admitted to the extent that the petitioner is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Patiala. He applied for furlough for domestic affairs and his case was forwarded to the District Magistrate Sangrur on 15.5.1986. This necessarily implies that conduct of the petitioner in jail. was good and requirements of clause (b) of sub -section (1) of section 4 of the Act stood satisfied. Else his case would not have been forwarded for temporary release on furlough.

(3.) SUCH release of the petitioner, however, was refused and his case was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons of Punjab. On 11 -11 -1986 as stated in the written statement. This was done because the District Magistrate, Sangrur on the basis of the reports of the local police did not recommend his release for the reason that complainants and eye - witnesses apprehended danger to their lives from the prisoner and peace was likely to be endangered. However no material or dam has teen provided for coming to that conclusion. In the absence thereof, the conclusion cannot be justified and it appears that the decision was arbitrary based on extraneous considerations Even otherwise section 6 of the Act makes it clear that only endangering the security of the State Government or the maintainance of public order negative the right to release under section 3 and 4 of the Act. Danger to any individual or individuals does not negate legal entitlement of a prisoner under the Act.