KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARNAIL Singh petitioner was tried along with his father Jagir Singh and three brothers, namely Balkar Singh, Avtar Singh and Jarnail Singh under section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge Hoshiarpur. The learned trial Judge acquitted Avtar Singh while the petitioner, his father and his other two brothers were awarded imprisonment for life for the aforesaid offence. The appeal filed by the petitioner and his co-convicts was dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner by way of this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has sought a direction from this Court to the State Government that he be released on furlough for a period of three weeks. It is not denied by the State in its reply that the petitioner has by now served a substantive sentence of more than five years and thus is qualified to be released on furlough under section 4 of the Punjab prisoners Good Conduct (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. On the basis of the petitioner in the jail where the petitioner is lodged, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala recommended his release on furlough. It may not be out of place to point out that one of his co-convicts, namely Jagir Singh and Supreme Court while his other two co-convicts, namely Jagir Singh and Balkar Singh were released on furlough by the State Government and after enjoying their furlough period they are again lodged in the jail. The District Magistrate who is the authority to recommed the release on furlough to the State Government called for the report of the local police. The S.H.O. Police Station, Mahalpur in whose jurisdiction the village of the petitioner fell, made a report to the effect that excepting the complainant nobody else in the village opposed the release of the petitioner on furlough. He further stated that if the petitioner is released on furlough there is likelihood of clash between the complainant party and the petitioner. He further stated that inspite of opposition of the police, the father and brother of the petitioner were released on for lough. On the basis of the report of the S.H.O., S.S.P. Hoshiarpur made a report to the District Magistrate stating therein that the village Panchayat is opposed to the release of the petitioner, which is factually wrong. The petitioner has also placed on record the translation of the resolution of the village Panchayat dated 30.11.1984, Annexure P-1, wherein the village Panchayat has recommended the release of the petitioner on furlough. The District Magistrate on the basis of the report of the S.S.P. recommended to the Government that the petitioner be not release on furlough.

(2.) THE averment of the petitioner that he has improved his educational qualifications and has been granted B Class in the Jail, has not been repudiated in the reply filed by the State. In no way the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of the co-convicts of petitioner who were earlier granted furlough. It appears that the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate is not based on sound reasons and has been mostly influenced by the wrong report of the police. I think it is a fit case where authorities should release the petitioner on furlough for three weeks, to which is entitled under the rules. I order accordingly.