RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of the present petition has sought his release on parole for 28 days, under Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 on the ground that he has to get his house repaired & that there is no body to get this job done. It is further alleged that the petitioner did apply for parole for the said period for the very purpose which was duly recommended by the Superintendent Jail, but it was rejected on 26.6.1987 by the Director General, Prisons, Haryana on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, Hissar, who opposed it only on the ground of the apprehension of breach of peace.

(2.) In the return filed by the respondents it is stated that since the case of the petitioner for being released on parole was not recommended by the District Magistrate and that there was every apprehension of breach of peace, therefore, his request was turned down. However, it is admitted in the return that the petitioner maintained good conduct in Jail while undergoing the sentence. The only opposition for grant of parole to the petitioner is on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace which can be safeguarded by directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond and furnishing a surety to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the said period. In case there is any breach of peace, the state can move for cancellation of parole and the amount of the personal bond and surety bond can be held liable to be forfeited. After furnishing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of the Rs. 5000/- each before the District Magistrate, Hissar, the petitioner be allowed parole for 28 days beginning with the date following the date of his release and the petitioner is further directed to surrender after enjoying 28 clear days of parole, on 29th day before the Superintendent of District Jail concerned. It is expected that the action on this order will be taken immediately otherwise the very purpose is likely to be frustrated.