GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gurcharan Singh, who was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 14th January, 1983, for offence of murder by Sessions Judge, Sangrur, has moved this petition for his temporary release on furlough. His case falls within four corners of Section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, hereinafter called the Act and according to him his conduct in jail had been good. It is contended that he is entitled to temporary release on furlough and refusal thereof by the releasing authority is arbitrary and capricious.

(2.) IT is mentioned in para No. 2 of the petition that petitioner is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life, which necessarily means an imprisonment for mote 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 more than five years actual, which clearly is more than the prescribed period of three years as provided in clause (a) of sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. These facts are not disputed in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents and his conduct inside the jail has neither been commented upon adversely. It is further admitted that the petitioner is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Patiala, that he applied for furlough for domestic work and his case was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, on 25th July, 1986. This necessarily implies that conduct of the petitioner inside jail was good and requirements of clause (b) of sub -section (1) of Sect I ion 4 of the Act were 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, Punjab, on 2nd December 1986, as stated in the written statement. This was done because District Magistrate, Sangrur, on the basis of the reports of the local police did not recommend. petitioner's release for the reason that certain persons felt that his coming on temporary release would not be out of danger. However, no material of data has been provided for coming to that conclusion. In the absence thereof, the conclusion cannot be justified rather it appears that the decision was arbitrary and based on extraneous considerations. Apprehension of any individual or individuals does not legally stand in the way of temporary release on furlough.