GURMEET SINGH ALIAS NEELA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment following his conviction by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by 1 his order dated March 21, 1986. He applied to the Jail authorities, for his release on six week's parole for agricultural purposes in July/August, 1987. Respondent No. 2 recommended his application. Eventually, the releasing, authority turned down his request by order dated March 30, 1988. The petitioner failed to secure a copy of the order rejecting his prayer. He has, however, challenged the order rejecting his prayer through this writ petition. The prayer made by the petitioner was followed up by another request in the form of application by father of the petitioner. Copy of the same is Annexure P 1. It was supported by the writing of the Panchayat Annexure P2. The petitioner was verbally informed that since his prayer for release on parole had been rejected by respondent No. 2, no further case for the purpose could be entertained. It is in these circumstances that the present writ was filed.

(2.) IN the return filed by Shri Dhanna Singh, Chief Probation Officer in the office of Inspector General, Punjab, it is not disputed that the petitioner was never awarded any jail punishment and that his conduct remained satisfactory. From the return it appears that the request of the petitioner was turned down on a report made by the police which was duty accepted by the District Magistrate who was consulted in the matter. The report by the police is that the witnesses of the prosecution who appeared against the present convict at the time of his trial apprehended breach of peace at the hands of the prisoner. On this basis, the police opposed the prayer for release on parole and this was endorsed by the learned District Magistrate, Ludhiana. The learned District Magistrate also added that reason for release was not found correct.

(3.) WITH regard to second ground of opposition. namely, that the reason for release was not found to be true, there is neither an averment that the Petitioner does not have any agricultural land or that he had other able bodied members to carry out agricultural operations. On both the counts therefore I do not find any cogent reason why the prayer should have been turned down. The order, in question is thus totally arbitrary and capricious. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on six weeks' parole on his furnishing a bond and surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. Dasti.