LALL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the order made on April 23, 1984, the Inspector General of Prisons has filled an affidavit dated May 1, 1984 annexing thereto a letter dated April 30, 1984 received by him from the District Magistrate, Una, observing, inter alia, that a fresh enquiry as ordered was held in the presence of respectable persons of the area to ascertain whether there was any justifiable reason for not releasing the petitioner on parole and that though the request of the petitioner for being released on parole on the ground of ill health of his wife and of carrying out repairs in his house appeared to be genuine, the release of the petitioner could not be recommended because the enquiry revealed that there was every apprehension of breach of peace in the event of his being released on parole and the possibility of his committing some heinous crime during the parole period could not be ruled out.

(2.) It would be worthwhile to recall that in the order dated April 23, 1984, the District Magistrate, Una and the Superintendent of Police, Una, were directed to hold a fresh enquiry to ascertain whether there was any justifiable reason for no releasing the petitioner on parole bearing in mind the guidelines laid down in Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and it was clarified that both the authorities would have to specify in the reports whether the petitioners presence was likely to endanger the security of the State or be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Court finds that despite the specific direction and clarification, the concerned authorities have failed to appreciate the true scope of the enquiry and made a report without appreciating the true legal effect of the relevant statutory provisions.

(3.) Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) empowers the State Government, or any officer duly authorised by it in that behalf, in consultation with the District Magistrate, to temporarily release for a specified period any prisoner, if the government is satisfied about the existence of the grounds mentioned in the said section. Section 4 empowers the State Government, or any officer duly authorised by it in that behalf, in consultation with the District Magistrate, to release temporarily, on furlough, any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years, subject to and on fulfillment of certain conditions. The power to release a prisoner on parole or furlough is subject to such conditions and is exercisable in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 6 of the Act reads as under:6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the. maintenance of public order. Section 10 of the Act confers upon the Government the power to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and it specifically provides for the enactment of rules prescribing the condition on which and the manner in which prisoner can be released temporarily under the Act.