Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1096 (PNJ)

Jai Ram v. State Of Punjab

2000-09-12

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Petitioner Jai Ram, who is undergoing imprisonment for life had moved the respondents for being granted parole in order to enable him to repair his house and meet his family. This application after it had been duly processed was rejected on the ground that as per the report of the opposite side and the local police there is apprehension of breach of peace in case the petitioner is granted parole. This order is sought to be challenged on the ground that apprehension of breach of peace does not constitute a valid ground under Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 , (in short the Act) for denying parole to the petitioner. 2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the Chief Welfare Officer, office of the Inspector General Prisons, Punjab relied upon the grounds incorporated in the order dated 30.3.2000, Annexure P-2 for justifying the denial of parole to the petitioner. 3. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and feel that there existed no justification for respondent No. 1 to pass order Annexure P-2. A perusal of Section 6 of the Act, which 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 State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order." Section 6 as amended by Punjab is as under : "6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary or where prisoners are not to be released :- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, - (1) it shall not be necessary to consult the District Magistrate, where the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner maintained good conduct during the period of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid section; and (ii) No prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if, on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order." makes it clear that parole can be refused where release of the prisoner is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. The mere apprehension in the minds of the opposite party that the release of the prisoner would endanger their lives would not constitute a valid ground for denying parole to the petitioner. 4 Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two weeks on his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting the bail and surety bonds. The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities after the expiry of the period of parole. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the period of parole and he shall avail the parole only for the purpose it was applied for. In case the petitioner violates any term or condition of bail bond, it will be open to the State to take the petitioner into custody. Petition allowed.