JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition may be briefly stated :

(2.) THE petitioner Jaswant Singh alongwith another was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 13-12-1985. He is undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, Ludhiana. Teja Singh, father of the petitioner made an application to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, for temporary release of his son for agricultural purposes. The application was duly signed by Sarpanch of the Village Gram Panchayat in token of his recommendation. It is not disputed that the Superintendent, Central Jail, recommended six weeks parole. The application was, however, opposed by the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned and the views of the S.H.0 were endorsed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagraon, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and District Magistrate, Ludhiana. The Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, therefore, turned down the request. In this writ petition, it has been, stated that the petitioner fulfils the necessary condition and is entitled, to temporary release under the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, and the rules framed thereunder and the order rejecting his prayer for such relief was illegal, arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory

(3.) IT is not disputed that the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Ludhiana, recommended the temporary release of the petitioner for six weeks parole for agricultural purposes. It follows that the conduct of the petitioner was found statisfactory by the Superintendent of the Central Jail, where the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment. It is further not disputed that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for the murder of one Bhao, who worked as a labourer with him. Said Bhao belonged to Rajasthan and after his murder his family had gone back to Rajasthan. The S.H.O. in his report, however, stated that the petitioner be not released on parole as the "Gram Panchayat of village Kishangarh" had appeared as a witness, against the petitioner in the murder trial. The Deputy Superintendent of Police in his comments stated that even though the Gram Panchayat had recommended the application for temporary release of the petitioner, the fact remained that "Gram Panchayat" had appeared as witness against the petitioner in the murder trial and, therefore, the application for release was not recommended by him. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, gave another dimension to the matter by stating that there was "danger to public peace and tranquillity" in the release of the petitioner on parole. The District Magistrate, Ludhiana, agreed with the view of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. A. perusal of the comments referred to above shows that while the report of the S.H.O. was confined to those member of the Gram Panchayat who had appeared in the murder trial against the prisoner, the Senior Superintendent of Police in his comments stated that release of the petitioner on parole was a danger to public law and tranquillity. Facts necessary to disclose how release of the petitioner on parole posed a threat to public peace and tranquillity was not spelt out. The District Magistrate appears to have agreed with the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police in routine. The authorities concerned were given adequate opportunity with the filing of the present writ petition that if they had any further material or ground to justify the conclusion that release of the petitioner on temporary parole would endanger public peace and tranquillity the same must have been disclosed in the written statement or it the time of hearing. No such material has been disclosed. It bears repetition that the application for parole was duly recommended by Sarpanch and some other members of the Gram Panchayat. There has been no history of the petitioner having given any cause of complaint, even though he was admittedly released earlier.