KAPOOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Kapoor Singh is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ludhiana, under orders of Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, dated 2nd of April, 1985. He applied for temporary release on parole under Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, (hereinafter called the Act) for 42 days for agricultural purposes on 7th of May, 1986. His application was duly recommended by the Superintendent of Jail, Ludhiana. His prayer, however, was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, on 13th February, 1987, relying upon report of District Magistrate, Ludhiana. Present writ petition has been filed by Kapoor Singh for his release on parole contending that he owns land in his village, that there is no adult male member in the family who could help to do the agricultural work on his said land and that he had maintained good conduct in jail. He has further contended that the rejection of his case on parole by the releasing authority was arbitrary, illegal and mala fide in exercise of powers.

(2.) FROM 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 his application for parole was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana. It is further added that the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, after collecting report of local police through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, did not recommend the release of the petitioner on the ground that the reasons for release had been reported to be incorrect. Affidavit of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, has also been placed on the record. On perusal of the said affidavit, it appears that what weighed with the authorities mainly was the statement of the complainant, who stated that he felt danger at the hands of the petitioner, although it is mentioned in the said affidavit itself that the local police ultimately recommended the release of the petitioner on parole. It is "endangering security of the State" or the 'maintenance of public order', which can play as a bar for such release as contemplated in Section 6 of the Act. Endangering security of any individual does not in any way operate as a legal obstacle. The contention of the complainant is neither based on any material or date. No attempt has been made to indicate as to how he apprehends danger. I, under the circumstances feel that the denial of the petitioner's prayer was on extraneous and arbitrary's grounds and so was not justified.

(3.) IN the light of what is stated above, the petitioner is ordered to be temporarily released on six weeks' parole to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Ludhiana. Petition accepted.