Nachhattar Singh vs Inspector General of Prisons and anr.

Jal Singh Sekhon, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code under the orders of the Sessions Judge dated 27.1.1989. His conduct in the jail has been good throughout. His case for grant of three weeks furlough under section 4(1)(a) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, for repairing of his house was recommended by the jail authorities but it was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, on 27.3.1992. In this petition the grouse of the petitioner is that the order of rejection of furlough is arbitrary being based on vague report of police. The petitioner had also appended copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat Annexure P. 2 to the effect that his house does need repair and that there is no danger to the peace if the petitioner is released on furlough.

In the return filed in the affidavit of Shri Daulat Singh, Chief Welfare Officer of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, it is maintained that the case of the petitioner for release on furlough was rejected on 27.3.1992 on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, Bathinda. The report reads as under :

"Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, has reported regarding grant of furlough to the above convict. Eye witnesses Gurdial Singh and Gursewak Singh of village Laihra Mohabat have recorded their statements. They have expressed danger from the convict. The village Panchayat of Laihra Mohabat has not recommended leave to the convict. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda has also not recommended three weeks furlough to the convict. Keeping in view the Senior Superintendent of Police''s report, release on furlough is not recommended."

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

A bare reading of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, reveals that Gurdial Singh and Gursewak Singh, eye witnesses in the main murder case for which the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment, had expressed their apprehension of danger from the convict. Relations of the deceased or eye witnesses would not relish the release of the accused on furlough. Report of the police having not recommended the case of the petitioner for parole/furlough is falsified from the resolution of the village panchayat, Annexure P. 2. Consequently, it is clear case of nonexercise of jurisdiction vested in the authorities on vague or arbitrary grounds. Moreover, the petitioner is required to furnish surety and personal bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, at the time of release on furlough/parole undertaking to keep peace etc and surrender before the authorities after the expiry of this period.

Consequently, for the reasons recorded above this petition is accepted and the concerned authorities are directed to release the petitioner on three weeks furlough on furnishing surety and personal bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda undertaking to keep peace and to surrender before the authorities after the expiry of parole period.