RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ranbir Singh lifer, who is lodged in District Jail Rohtak, applied for temporary release 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 1.6.1987. His case was fully recommended by Superintendent District Jail Rohtak but ultimately rejected by Director General of Prisons, Haryana on December 30, 1987, on the basis of report of District Magistrate, Rohtak. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by Rajinder Singh for release on parole, contending that he owns four killas of land in the village; that there is no adult male member in the family, who could help him to do the agriculture work on his land; that his conduct in jail has been good and that resection of his case for temporary release on parole by the releasing authority was arbitrary, unlawful and mala fide.

(2.) FROM the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that conduct of the petitioner while in jail was satisfactory. It is also admitted therein that application for parole was rejected by the Director General of Prison, Haryana and it is further added that the same was rightly rejected on the basis of recommendation and report of the District Magistrate, Rohtak. The report of the District Magistrate, Rohtak, is annexed as Annexure R2/T, wherein it is enticed that there is party faction in the village and no member of village Panchayat is ready to write anything. That is why to my mind, could not stand in the way of temporary release of the petitioner on parole. A person belonging to rival camp would never relish release on parole of the member of the other camp and non-commital of the Panchayat does not necessarily amount to any serious obstacle. Rather, it should be viewed from a positive angle in the sense that no member of the Panchayat was against the release of the petitioner on parole. These two observations made in the report of District Magistrate, Rohtak, dated 15.10.1987 cannot by any stretch of imagination, be taken to amount to "endanger security of the State" or the -maintenance of public order" as contemplated in section 6 of the Act so as to deny parole to the petitioner. It is mentioned in para 6 of the petition that two co-accused in the case had already availed parole peacefully and the other two were at the time of filing of the petition on parole for six weeks. In reply to the said para, it is stated that the contents of para 6 of the Writ petition are admitted as being a matter of record. If the four co-accused could be released on parole despite party faction in the village, I do not see any reason for denial of the same facility to petitioner Ranbir Singh, particularly when it has been admitted by the District Magistrate that no member of the village Panchayat was ready to write anything. 1, therefore, find that the denial of the petitioner's prayer was based on extraneous and arbitrary grounds. The same thus is not at all justified.