Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 935 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. Haryana State

2000-08-17

S.S.NIJJAR

body2000
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The application made by the petitioner for being released on parole has been rejected on the ground that the house of the petitioner does not require repairs. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 34879-M of 1999 (Satbir v. The State of Haryana and others) decided on 21st February, 2000, where such ground has not been accepted by this Court and parole has been granted. In that case, it has been observed that it is for the petitioner to decide whether the house should be repaired or not. Thus the petitioner cannot be denied parole on this ground. The second reason given for rejecting the parole to the petitioner is that the release of the petitioner would result in breach of the peace. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in Chand Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR 230. In the aforesaid judgment in paragraph 4 it has been observed as follows : "4. At the outset, as far as the terminology of Section 3 of the said Act is concerned, it is provided that the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other Officer appointed in this behalf, by notification and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, is empowered to release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner from the prison with certain stipulation laid down in sub-clauses (a) to (d). Sub-clause (d) of the section says that it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the condition laid down under clauses (a) to (c) but is covered by sub-clause (d) of Section 3 of the said Act and the Inspector General of Prisons has to determine the matter as a quasi judicial authority and he has to consider the case of every convict who seeks parole on merit of each case, having regard to the justice in mind, whether the convict required parole for the purpose as laid down in the section. He cannot bypass the section saying that there is likelihood of breach of peace in the area if the convict is released on bail. He cannot bypass the section saying that there is likelihood of breach of peace in the area if the convict is released on bail. It is the duty of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to maintain the law and order in the area. If there is any apprehension for breach of peace, it is the duty of the police and the District Magistrate to look into the matter and give protection to the people who are expecting such danger from the release of the accused on parole. The law laid down is that no body can be released if his release is detrimental to the security of the country or there is likelihood that his release in any way will endanger the security or integrity of the country. The mere allegation that there is apprehension of breach of peace is no criteria on the basis of which the Inspector General of Prisons can refuse the release of the petitioner on temporary parole for a specified period as laid down in the section. Hence the order passed by the Inspector General of Prisons is set aside. He is directed to consider, the case of the petitioner afresh and to pass the appropriate order within 10 days from the receipt of this order. A copy of the order to be provided to the petitioner by tomorrow on payment of costs." 2. The learned counsel has also relied on a judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR 716. In this case also the petitioner was granted parole by rejecting similar ground as put forward by the State. 3. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks from the date he is released.