CHHAJJU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Chhaju Singh, a life convict, confined in Central Jail Patiala, was convicted and sentenced for murder on 21.5.1985 by the Judge. Special Court, Patiala. He applied for temporary release on parole under section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 for 42 days for agricultural purposes on 14.5.1987. His application was duly recommended by the Superintendent Central Jail, Patiala. His prayer, however, was rejected by Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, on 26.10.1987 on the ground that there was apprehension of breach of peace. Present criminal, writ petition has been filed by Chhaju Singh for his such release contending that he was eligible for parole for agricultural purposes and, that his conduct in jail had been good. According to him, the rejection of his case on parole by the releasing authority was arbitrary.

(2.) IN the return filed on behalf of respondents it is not disputed that his conduct in jail had been satisfactory. It is further clear therefrom that Superintendent Central Jail Patiala found him eligible for parole and that his prayer was rejected by Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, on 26.10.1987 on the basis of the report of District Magistrate Sangrur, that there was apprehension of breach of peace on the release of convict Chhaju Singh. This opinion, however, is not based on any data or material 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 parole. The report of the District Magistrate, Sangrur, reproduced in the return does not even indicate that he independently applied his mind to the case in hand. He has based his opinion on the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, stating that he agrees with the same, without providing any reason whatsoever. Reports of local Police indicate that it had come to their notice that there was apprehension to the lives and properties of the opposite party. A member of the opposite party for obvious reasons would be the last person to agree to any facility sought to be extended to the convict. 1, under the circumstances, find that the denial of the petitioner's prayer was not at all, justified.