JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Jasbir Singh son of Sohan Singh has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that he be released on agricultural parole for a period of six weeks in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and the case set up by the petitioner is that he is serving sentence of five years after his conviction in a case FIR No. 3 of 1995 registered under Sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act and that he has undergone his major portion of sentence and only ten months are left for completion of his sentence. He has moved an application for his release on agricultural parole which has been ultimately declined to him vide order dated 21.12.1998 on the ground that it has been reported by the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police that the residents of the village had shown their apprehension of fear in the event of the release of the detenu. Further it has been averred that the petitioner has been sentenced for five years and to pay to fine of Rs. 2,000/- under the TADA Act and thirdly in view of the decision of the High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 19891-M of 1994, the petitioner is entitled to parole.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the State before rejecting the case of a prisoner for parole is bound to formulate an opinion that since the prisoner has been convicted under TADA, is no ground to reject the case of the prisoner for agricultural parole or any other parole to which he is entitled as per provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. Shri Navkiran Singh also submitted that the order Annexure P.1 would show that the State Government has made a sweeping remark in the impugned order by stating that since the prisoner has been convicted in a TADA case undergoing imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of parole. Moreover, the State has not shown any basis how the ultimate release of the petitioner will become source of fear to the co-villagers. Learned counsel also submitted and drew my attention to the judgment of this court dated 29.2.1996 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 12645-M of 1995, Raj Pal v. State of Punjab and submitted that the said judgment is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. On the contrary contention of the State is that since the petitioner has been convicted in a TADA case, therefore, his conviction itself will fall within Section 6(ii) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and this gives right to the State Government to reject the case of parole of the prisoners who have been convicted under the provisions of TADA.