Jai Singh vs State of Haryana and anr.

S.S. Grewal, J.

The petitioner who is undergoing life imprisonment in respect of offences under Section 372 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and, for possessing unauthorised arms under the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act has sought his release on parole. It was pleaded that agriculture is the only source of livelihood of petitioner''s family and the petitioner used to cultivate the land in village Kardhan. It was further pleaded that there was none else in his family to look after agricultural land, and, for this reason he may be released on parole. The Panchayat had also recommended for his release on parole vide resolution (copy Annexure P 1).

The respondents including the State of Haryana have opposed the request for grant of parole, as the district authorities did not recommend parole, and, request for this purpose was rejected by the competent authority. It was also pleaded that the petitioner''s father and brother, who were acquitted, could do agriculture work.

Admittedly, the petitioner is not a habitual offender. There is no data or cogent material on which District Magistrate based his opinion that there would be danger to public peace by the release of the said convict on parole. It is quite clear that the denial of the petitioner''s request for parole was on extraneous and arbitrary grounds.

4 It is doubtful that the petitioner''s brother and father would render help in agricultural operations concerning the land failing to the share of the petitioner.

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole under Section 3 (1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, for a period of six weeks from the date of his actual release subject to his furnishing requisite security bound to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. This petition is accordingly allowed.

Revision allowed.