AMAR DUTT,J - (1.) PETITIONER -Jagdish Kumar @ Dadu, who is undergoing imprisonment for life had in March, 1999 applied to the jail authorities for grant of parole of four weeks under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 in order to enable him to execute the repairs of the house and to meet the members of his family. The application was accompanied by a panchayatnama from the village certifying the factum of the damage; the assertion that no other able-bodied member of the family is available and the fact that there is no apprehension in the mind of the Panchayat that his release would result in breach of peace. This application was considered and rejected by the respondents on the grounds that in case the petitioner is released on parole there is an apprehension that there would be breach of peace. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner has moved this Court through present petition.
(2.) NO reply had been filed on behalf of the respondents despite the case having been adjourned on several occasions for enabling them to do so. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have considered the submissions made by them. Through letter Annexure P-1 the Superintendent, Borstal Jail, Ludhiana had informed the petitioner that from the report of the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police it had been found that in the event of release of the prisoner for four weeks there is apprehension that there would be breach of peace. Ordinarily, I would have asked the respondents to make available the material on the basis of which such a report was made but taking into consideration the fact that right to take parole is available to a prisoner during the currency of one calendar year and the year to which the application pertains having come to an end, no useful purpose would be served by launching a detailed enquiry into the merits of the rejection order. It would be suffice to say that while making such reports the District authorities should adopt a humanitarian approach and recommend the rejection of an application only in cases where there is some material available with them for apprehending that in the event of the petitioner being released there is a genuine apprehension of breach of peace taking place and if such an apprehension exists they should also address their attention to the possibility of this apprehension being reduced by limiting the period of parole from four weeks to a lesser period of time. With these observations and hoping that the authorities will, while assessing the needs of a prisoner for grant of parole, bear in mind that the statute has been enacted with a view to facilitate the rehabilitation of the prisoners in society by allowing them to interact with their near and dear ones so as to avoid any abrasions (aberrations ?) which may develop in their personality on account of their continuous forced deprivation of an opportunity to interact in the society, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in the event of the petitioner's moving a fresh application in this calendar year, the same shall be processed and disposed of an expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks. Petition allowed.;