S.S.NIJJAR, J. - (1.) APPLICATION of the petitioner for parole has been rejected on the ground that the house of the petitioner does not need repairs. The application has been filed by the wife of the petitioner in which it is clearly stated that the house is kachha and it has been damaged by heavy rains. It is further stated that there is no the member who can get the house repaired. The District Magistrate relying on the report of the police has stated that the house is not repairable. On the other hand, the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for parole states that the house does not need repairs. It is also further stated that there is apprehension of breach of peace in the village, if the petitioner is released on parole. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily without taking into consideration the necessary provisions of the law. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2000(1) RCR (Crl.) 487 (P&H) vide Crl. Misc. No. 34879-M of 1999 decided on 21.2.2000 held that it was for the petitioner to decide whether the house needs repairs or not. This Court has also held in the case of Dalwinder Singh v. Inspector General of Prisons and another, 1993(1) R.C.R. 694 that the legislature has enacted Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 in order to encourage the prisoners to become good citizens by behaving properly in the Jail as well as on humanitarian grounds so that the dependents may not suffer unnecessarily. In that case also the following reasons were put forward for rejecting the application :- "As per report of Incharge Officer, P.S. Bhogpur, the complainant party apprehends danger from the convict and because of party faction, there is danger of loss to both sides. Apart from above, there is no need of any repair to the house of prisoner Dalvinder Singh. So officer incharge, P.S. Bhogpur and Deputy Superintendent of Police do not recommend release on parole to prisoner Dalvinder Singh. I also do not recommend release on parole to prisoner Dalvinder Singh son of Malkiat Singh. Sd/- Senior Superintendent of Police"
(2.) THIS Court held that under these circumstances, it appears that the respondents had withheld the concession of parole arbitrarily and on vague grounds. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid two judgments. Subsequently, this court has reiterated the law in the case of Chand Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR 230, in the aforesaid judgment, in paragraph 4 it has been observed as follows :- "4. At the outset, as far as the terminology of Section 3 of the said Act is concerned, it is provided that the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other Officer appointed in this behalf, by notification and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, is empowered to release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner from the prison with certain stipulation laid down in sub-clauses (a) to (d). Sub-clause (d) of the section says that it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the condition laid down under clauses (a) to (c) but is covered by sub-clause (d) of Section 3 of the said Act and the Inspector General of Prisons has to determine the matter as a quasi judicial authority and he has to consider the case of every convict who seeks parole on merit of each case, having regard to the justice in mind, whether the convict required parole for the purpose as laid down in the Section. He cannot bypass the Section saying that there is likelihood of breach of peace in the area if the convict is released on bail. It is the duty of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to maintain law and order in the area. If there is any apprehension for breach of peace, it is the duty of the police and the District Magistrate to look into the matter and give protection to the people who are expecting such danger from the release of the accused on parole. The law laid down is that no body can be released if his release is detrimental to the security of the country or there is likelihood that his release in any way will endanger the security or integrity of the country. The mere allegation that there is apprehension of breach of peace is no criteria on the basis of which the Inspector General of Prisons can refuse the release of the petitioner on temporary parole for a specified period as laid down in the section. Hence the order passed by the Inspector General of Prisons is set aside. He is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and to pass the appropriate order within 10 days from the receipt of this order. A copy this order be provided to the petitioner by tomorrow on payment of costs." Therefore, the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that there is an apprehension of breach of peace. Such a ground is not known under the provisions of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.
(3.) IN view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the application of the petitioner has been rejected arbitrarily. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Sirsa, provided he is, otherwise, eligible under the rules and regulations. Petition allowed.;