HARGOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition seeking parole for four weeks under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act (in short to be called as "the Act") on the ground of house repairs.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner for parole was initiated by the jail authorities and the same was considered and rejected vide order Annexure P2/T. The grievance of the petitioner is that the case has been rejected on wholly irrelevant and unsustainable grounds. The District Magistrate, Sangrur, from whom the report was called for by the concerned authority, entrusted with the matter of grant of parole, sent a report in consultation with the Superintendent of Police of the District to the effect that in case the petitioner is released on parole, the same will endanger the security of the State and there was threat to the peace of the area and it is likely to endanger to maintain law and order. Section 6 of the Act provides;

(3.) APART from it, such release cannot be said to tantamount the endanger to the maintenance of public order. That being so, the matter of parole on the basis of house repairs, as certified by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, vide Panchnama Exhibit P1/T, is a valid ground covered under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. The petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The respondents are directed to admit the petitioner on parole for a period of three weeks from the date of his release, subject to furnishing bounds to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Sangrur. After expiry of the period of parole, the petitioner shall appear before the District Magistrate, Sangrur, who shall commit him to the Central Jail, Bhatinda for serving out the sentence, which he is already undergoing there.