AMAR DUTT, J. - (1.) PETITIONER -Harnek Singh has filed this petition asserting that the application moved by him to the respondents for grant of parole under the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 in order to enable him to repair his house was rejected on the ground that "there is apprehension of (breach of) peace in the village due to the release of the prisoner because there is friction among groups in the village. Along with the petition, he has annexed a copy of the report of the Gram Panchayat of Village Mangeyana, which indicates that "there is no danger to peace of any body due to this release."
(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of respondents by the Chief Welfare Officer, office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab reliance was sought to be placed on the report of the District Magistrate for submitting that the petitioner's application had been rightly rejected. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have considered the submissions made by them. Through letter Annexure P-1 the petitioner was informed 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 on parole there is apprehension that there would be breach of peace. While it is correct that the petitioner is undergoing sentences imposed on his under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act and yet there is nothing in law which would entitle the State to treat him differently from other persons. Under the Act, the State is entitled of deny the relief envisaged in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act only when the State apprehends that the release of the petitioner would endanger the security of the State. 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 suspecting that in the event of the petitioner being released there is a genuine likelihood of his posing a threat to the security of the State. A mere apprehension of breach of peace can be countered by reducing the period of parole and keeping the movement of the petitioner under surveillance.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three weeks on his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Sirsa, who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting the bail and surety bonds. The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities after the expiry of the period of parole. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the period of parole and he shall avail the parole only for the purpose it was applied for. In case the petitioner violates any term or condition of bail bond, it will be open to the State to take the petitioner into custody. Petition allowed.;