Sham Sunder vs District Magistrate and anr.

Pritpal Singh, J.

The petitioner was sanctioned two weeks emergency parole by the Superintendent Jail, Ferozepur on the ground of his sister''s illness and the release warrants were sent to the District Magistrate, Ferozepur. The latter refused to release the petitioner on parole on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace. As the data or material on which this opinion was arrived at by the District Magistrate was not indicated in the return by him, the respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner''s case within 2 weeks by an order of this Court dated February 2, 1987.

In pursuance of the order of this Court the petitioner''s case has been reconsidered and rejected on February 20, 1987. The return filed by the District Magistrate indicates that the petitioner''s case has been rejected on three grounds.

The first ground on which the petitioner''s case has been rejected is that his sister is suffering from insanity since her childhood and as such there is no special reason to allow the petitioner to be released on parole due to her illness. This ground of rejection cannot be upheld. It was asserted by petitioner in paragraph 2 of the petition that his sister is now lying seriously ill and the doctors have advised immediate treatment to avoid further deterioration of her health. This ascertain has not been controverted by the respondents in their return. It, therefore cannot be said that the ground on which the petitioner prays to be released on parole is not in existence.

The second ground of rejection is that the petitioner''s father was released on four weeks parole on December 5, 1985 but he failed to surrender after the expiry of the period of parole. He absconded and was later on arrested on April 18, 1986. Simply because the petitioner''s father did not comply with terms of the parole, it cannot be automatically presumed that the petitioner will also abscond. For any fault of his father the petitioner cannot be penalised.

Lastly, it is contended that the complainant party of the case in which he was convicted apprehend danger of their lives. In my view the rejection of the petitioner''s prayer on this ground cannot be upheld. It is not disputed that the petitioner is qualified to be released on parole and he is not a bad conduct prisoner. If the benefit of parole is to be withheld on the ground that the petitioner''s opponents object to it on the ground of apprehension of danger, then probably in no case this relief could be granted to a prisoner. This certainly cannot be the object of Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.

In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioner''s prayer has been rejected on arbitrary and extraneous grounds. The respondents are, therefore, directed to release, the petitioner on the two weeks'' parole forthwith.