SATISH CHANDRA TYAGI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who belongs to village Pursi, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, which was committed by him at Shimla. He is presently lodged in the Sub Jail, Mandi.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for his temporary release on parole in or about July, 1985, on two grounds : (a) That his wife was in family way and was due for delivery around September, 15, 1985; and (b) That his presence at his native place was required for agricultural operations. The application was forwarded for remarks to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The District Magistrate opposed the release of the petitioner on parole, although the reasons on which the release was sought were found to be correct, on the basis of a report submitted to him by the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The grounds on which such opposition was based were that the father of the petitioner was alive, that he and other relatives of the petitioner were looking after his wife as well as his ailing mother, that he being in the prime of his life and having been convicted for the offence of murder might once again indulge in criminal activity if released on parole and that he had already been twice released on parole and the last of such parole period had expired only on July 12, 1985. The communication of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad was received in the office of the Inspector General of Prisons on August 30, 1985. When the papers were put up before Inspector General of Prisons for orders he initially directed on September 5, 1985 that the petitioner be released on parole for three weeks. Subsequently, however, he appears to have had a second thought, and, accordingly, he issued directions on September 10, 1985, that a report be called for from the Sub Jail, Mandi, with regard to the petitioner's transfer to a jail located in Uttar Pradesh. On September 12, 1985, a note was placed before Inspector General of Prisons stating that the Superintendent of Jail, Mandi had informed that the petitioner had let it be know that he would get himself transferred to a Jail in Uttar Pardesh after he availed of the parole applied for. The Inspector General of Prisons thereupon directed that the petitioner be advised to apply accordingly. On September 16, 1985, the office of the inspector General of Prisons once again placed the parole case of the petitioner for his consideration pointing out that it was the choice of the convict whether or not to apply for transfer to a Jail in Uttar pradesh and that matter could be independently dealt with. However, so far as the petitioner's prayer for release on parole was concerned the same was required to be decided since the period within which such applications were required to be dealt with had already expired. The Inspector General of Prisons recorded a note on September 17, 1985, desiring to know about the "conduct" of the petitioner in the Nahan jail where he was previously lodged and from where he was transferred on account of his "misconduct". The report of the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, in connection with an incident which had occurred on July 15, 1985 while the petitioner was lodged in the Jail, along with the report of Executive Magistrate, HAS (Prob.), Nahan was September 17, 1985. Upon perusal of the report, the Inspector General of Prisons, on September 18, 1985, directed that the parole of the petitioner be rejected "for the time being". The intimation with regard to the rejection of his parole reached the petitioner on September 27, 1985.

(3.) IT would be convenient, at this stage, to mention a few other facts. In the first place, the petitioner was earlier released on parole on two occasions. On the first occasion, the period of temporary release was from December 10, 1984 to January 20, 1985 and, on the second occasion, the temporary release was for the period from June 1, 1985 to July 12, 1985. The grounds for release on parole on both the occasions were for the treatment of his ailing mother and carrying out agricultural operations. It is not clear whether, on the first occasion the grant of parole was opposed by the district administration of Ghaziabad. On the second occasion, however, the proposal to release the petitioner on parole was resisted by them on the ground that he was a person with a criminal mind and that he could indulge in criminal activity if he was released on the parole. Inspite of an adverse report to the aforesaid effect received from the district authorities of Ghaziabad, the petitioner was released on parole on the second occasion taking into consideration the fact that no adverse report was received about his conduct during the first period of temporary release. Even during the second period of the petitioner's release on parole he is not found to have indulged in any activity prejudicial to the public order or even to have committed any offence since no such adverse report was received from the district authorities of Ghaziabad. In the report submitted by the said authorities on the present occasion, there is no mention about any such activity on the part of the petitioner. In the next place, the petitioner appears to have been transferred from the Model Central jail, Nahan, to Sub Jail, Mandi, pursuant to some incident which appears to have taken place in the former Jail on July 15, 1985 in the course of which the petitioner is alleged to have behaved like a drunkard and to have created nuisance along with other inmates of the jail and to have raised slogans and refused to go to the barrack/cell. It is pertinent to note, in this connection, however, that an enquiry was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, HAS (Prob), Nahan, into the said incident. The original report of the said enquiry was perused by the Court. The report reveals that on July 15, 1985, all the prisoners of the Model Central Jail, Nahan were standing outside the internal gate of the jail and were shouting slogans against the Superintendent of the Jail. When the Executive Magistrate asked them to explain their problem to him, the prisoner explained that they had been beaten up by the Jail staff and that one of the prisoners, who was assigned duty in the office of the Superintendent of the Jail had been intentionally kept out of Jail till late hours of the night. The Executive Magistrate had found injuries on the persons of some of the inmates of the Jail. The report submitted by the Executive Magistrate after holding an on the spot enquiry on the same day refers to an agitation on the part of all the prisoners and does not name the petitioner as the sole agitator or a ring leader. Besides, there is no mention in the report about the petitioner having behaved like a drunkard or having created nuisance as alleged by the Superintendent of the Jail in the course of his own report. There is no dispute that except transferring the petitioner from Model Central Jail, Nahan to Sub Jail, Mandi, no other action has been taken against him. He has not been dealt with in accordance with the Punjab Jail Manual for having committed any jail offence. No Jail offence is even shown to have been committed by the petitioner and no adverse report against him, other than the one mentioned above, shown to be on the Jail record.