RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Raj Singh a lifer undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, Hissar, 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. His case for such release was initiated by Superintendent, Central Jail, Hissar, but was finally rejected by Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, on 18.4.1988 on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, Hissar with regard to apprehension of breach of peace. Present writ petition has been filed by Raj Singh for his such release contending that he owns 5 acres of agricultural land which requires agricultural operations, that there is neither any friend not adult male number in the family to lookafter such operations, that his conduct in jail has been satisfactory and that rejection of his case for temporary release on parole was made arbitrarily.

(2.) FROM the return filed on behalf of the respondents it is clear that conduct of the petitioner while in jail has been satisfactory. It is also admitted therein that petitioner's application for parole was rejected due to apprehension of breach of public peace with regard to which District Magistrate, Hissar, had opined. Report of the District Magistrate, Hissar, is annexed as annexure R-2. The District Magistrate, Hissar, does not appear to have applied his mind to the case independently. He has simply made an endorsement by which report of Superintendent of Police, Hissar has forwarded in original to the Director General and Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, Mani Majra, Chandigarh with the report that according to report of Superintendent of Police, Hissar, release on parole in respect of convict Raj Singh s/o Amar Singh was not recommended. Law permits consultation of District Magistrate concerned only and not that of any officer of the police. When District Magistrate, simply ditoes the report of Superintendent of police without application of mind, it cannot be accepted as his objective satisfaction in the matter. In any case, even if it may be accepted to be the opinion of District Magistrate Hissar, that there was apprehension of breach of public peace with regard to which even report of Superintendent of Police, Hissar is silent, said opinion 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. I, therefore, find that denial of the petitioner's prayer was on extraneous and arbitrary grounds for which reason the same cannot be treated to be justified.