SUCHNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Suchnam Singh, a life convict, is undergoing his sentence in Central Jail Patiala, under orders dated 20.1.1983 of Session Judge, Amritsar, on his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and has undergone actual sentence of more than four years already. He has moved this petition for his temporary release on furlough contending that his conduct in jail has been good and he never committed any jail offence during his confinement. It is further contended that his case for furlough for domestic affairs was recommended by Superindent Central Jail, Amritsar, on 14.2.1916 but the same was rejected by the authorities concerned on 25.3.1987 without affording any cogent reasons. According to him, said rejection is arbitrary and capricious as well as mala fide exercise of power.

(2.) THE facts averred in the petition are not disputed in the Written Statement flied on behalf of the respondent. It is stated in the Written Statement that the furlough case of the petitioner for domestic affairs was initiated on 14.2.1986 but the same was rejected by the Inspector -General Prisons, Punjab, on 25.3.1987 on the basis of the report made by the local police which happened to be adverse. It is also not disputed that the conduct of the Petitioner in jail had been satisfactory. The very fact that his case was recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar is a guarantee of that fact and also implies that the requirements of clause (b) of sub -section(1) of section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short, the Act), under which provision of law the present petition for temporary release of furlough has been moved, stood satisfied. Else the cast of the petitioner would not have been forwarded or recommended for temporary release on furlough.

(3.) SUCH release or the petitioner, however, was refused and his case was rejected by the 1. 0. (Prisons) Punjab on 25.3.1987, as stated in the Written Statement. This was done on the basis of the report of the local police which was endorsed by the Senior Superintendent of Police as well as the District Magistrate, Faridkot. The report of the local police has been reproduced in the Written Statement wherein it is mentioned that the enquiries were made from the house of the complainant and it was found that they apprehended grave danger from the convict. This is something strange. No complainant i.e., an opponent, would relish temporary release of a convict on furlough and is bound to oppose it. No. material or data has been provided on which such apprehension was based. In the absence thereof, the conclusion of the police authorities cannot be justified, and for obvious reasons, becomes arbitrary or a decision based on extraneous considerations. It is mentioned in the report that it was possible that serious crime may be committed. Thus, clearly the report is based on conjectures, and not on any definite material or information. Such reports or suppositions should not have been made the basis for the rejection of the case of the petitioner. Even otherwise, section 6 of the Act makes it clear that only endangering the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order negates the right to release u/secs 3 and 4 of the Act. Danger to any individual or individuals cannot, and does not negate the legal entitlement of a prisoner under the Act.