HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Harbhajan Singh, an inmate of Central Jail, Patiala was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 7.10.1986 by Sessions Judge, Patiala. He applied for temporary release on parole under Section 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act), for two weeks on the ground of serious illness of his wife. His application was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala on 2.11.1987, but despite the emergency involved, no action was taken thereon by the District Magistrate, Patiala for quite some time. Ultimately, present criminal writ petition was filed by Harbhajan Singh contending that his wife was seriously ill and there was no adult male member in his family who could look after her or make arrangements for her treatment and that inaction on the part of the District Magistrate, Patiala, be treated as denial of the relief claimed by him. It is further alleged that his conduct in jail throughout has been good.

(2.) FROM the return filed on behalf of the respondents it is clear that satisfactory conduct of the petitioner is not disputed. Para No. 3 of the petition wherein it is alleged that he never committed any jail offence; no jail punishment was ever awarded to him and that his conduct and behaviour inside and outside the jail remained good has been admitted in the written statement. It is also admitted therein that the petitioner applied for two weeks's emergency parole for the treatment of his ailing wife and his case was sent tot he District Magistrate, Patiala for accepting the bail bonds by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala on 2.11.1987, meaning thereby that his assertion with regard to ailment for his wife was accepted. It is also supported through Panchayatnama Annexure P1 wherein it is mentioned that the entire Gram Panchayat strongly recommended the emergency parole case of convict Harbhajan Singh because his wife was serious and had been admitted to the hospital. It is further mentioned therein that there is no other adult male member in the family of the detenu who can nurse or attend her. It is further added in the written statement that District Magistrate, Patiala called the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala regarding the law and order situation in the area on the release of the petitioner and for verifying the facts of emergency parole release sought, vide his letter dated 11.11.1987. The extract of the letter quoted in the written statement indicates that report was called within a fortnight. Obviously, the same must have been received in the office of the District Magistrate, Patiala by now. In any case either he is sitting tight over the matter or the Senior Superintendent of Police appears to be beyond control of everybody. It is not denied that emergency parole cases are required to be attended to with utmost speed. Despite that for more than two months no action was taken on the matter. This inaction on the part of the machinery of the Government clearly tentamounts to denial of the relief or rejection of the parole of the detenu. Such rejection on the face of it is based on extraneous and arbitrary grounds and cannot be justified.