RATHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ratha Singh, a lifer, confined in Central Jail, Patiala. who was sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, on 22.9.1981, has moved this petition for his temporary release on furlough under section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, contending that he has undergone total sentence of more than 12 years including the period of actual sentence and that of remissions and that his conduct in jail was satisfactory. According to him, his case for temporary release on furlough was recommended on 21.5.1986 but the same was rejected by Inspector General of Prisons Punjab on 9.3.1987 without any cogent reason.

(2.) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is not disputed that conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory. It is further added therein that three weeks furlough case of the petitioner was initiated by Superintendent Central Jail Patiala on 21.5.1986 and the same was rejected on 9.3.1987 on the basis of the report of District Magistrate Ferozepur. Actual sentence undergone by the petitioner has been given in the return as more than 6 years. Thus petitioner being a life convict and one who had undergone sentence much more than three years, excluding remissions is entitled to consideration of his case for release on furlough as per requirements provided under section 4 of the aforesaid Act. If we refer to the report of the District Magistrate, Ferozepur, which has been incorporated in the return, it provides that local police had not recommended release on furlough as there was apprehension of breach of peace and he agreed with the report of the local police. No reason, however, is forthcoming to base that opinion, This opinion having not been based on any data or material, cannot be considered to be relevant. No attempt has been made to indicate as to how law and order was likely to be adversely affected by the release of The petitioner on furlough. I, therefore, find that the denial of the petitioner's prayer was on extraneous and arbitrary grounds and was not justified.