JAGROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 26-10-1984. he has undergone about 3 years and 11 months actual sentence including the period of detention during trial besides having earned 2 years 11 months and 23 days remissions due to his good conducting in the jail. On the recommendation of the village Panchayat, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, had strongly recommended his case for 6 weeks parole for agricultural purposes but it was declined by the Inspector General of Prisons on the report of the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to the effect that local Police apprehended breach of peace at his hands if released on parole. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filling writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or mandamus on the ground that he is being discriminated in the matter of allowing parole especially when his real brother convicted in the same case has already been granted such parole.

(2.) IN the return filed by way of affidavit of Shri Dalip Singh, Chief Welfare Officer, it is contended that the granting of parole was rightly withheld on the report of the District Magistrate, Sangrur, as Chhota Singh, Sadha Singh, Jagroop Singh s/o Bant Singh and Jagroop Singh s/o Narain Singh residents of village Bhadurpur apprehended danger to their life at the hands of Jagroop Singh, petitioner if released on bail, on the ground that about 7-8 years back, on Diwali day, the petitioner bad murdered Gurdev Singh near the house of Chhota Singh and that they had figured as eyewitnesses against Jagroop Singh petitioner but he was ultimately acquitted in appeal by the High Court. It is further maintained that after his release, Jagroop Singh and his brother Bharpur Singh again murdered Uttam Singh of village Jhaneri who was living with the aforesaid Sadha Singh.

(3.) NONE has appeared on behalf of the State of Punjab. Thus, there. is no option but to dispose of this matter in the absence of any representation by the State respondents. Mr. J. S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the relations of the deceased or enemies of the petitioner would not relish his release on parole besides maintaining that the parole was not declined by the State Government on the basis of petitioner being not owner of any land. He further maintained that the affidavit of Amar Singh clearly shows that he being an old man, his son Jagroop Singh used to look after the cultivation.