HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) SATPAL is undergoing imprisonment for life on his conviction on 17th October, 1990 and at present is detained in District Jail, Rohtak. He moved the jail authority for his release on parole for house repair and his case was daily recommended by the Superintendent District Jail. He was, however, not released on parole and his prayer was declined by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana on 30th June, 1992. The petitioner alleged that denial of house repair parole to him was arbitrary and illegal as there was no apprehension of breach of peace on his release. He availed 14 days parole in the year 1990 which he enjoyed peacefully. His conduct in jail remained good. He, thus, filed his present petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for four weeks parole in accordance with the provisions of section 3(1)(d) of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.
(2.) IN the return filed by the respondent this fact was admitted that the petitioner was in custody since 26-10-1989 and his conduct in jail was good as he was never awarded any jail punishment. It was maintained that parole case of the petitioner was rejected on the recommendation of District Magistrate which was made on the basis of police report. The Superintendent Police reported that release on parole of the petitioner could endanger the public order and life of the members of the opposite party. Alongwith return copies of the reports of Police, District Magistrate, Rohtak and Additional Director General of Prisons Annexure R-1 to R-3 were attached. I have perused that record which shows that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and is detained in District Jail Rohtak. Admittedly, his conduct in jail remained good and he was never awarded jail punishment. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and the fact that his house required repairs, his case for release on parole was duly initiated by the Superintendent District Jail, Rohtak. The case was rejected only on the ground that the opposite party apprehended danger at the hands of the petitioner submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, copy of which is Annexure R-I. To similar effect is the report of the District Magistrate but the District Magistrate added one more fact that house of the petitioner was cemented one and it did not require repairs. Annexure R-3 is also in similar terms. There is nothing on record to show as to how the District Magistrate had stated this fact that house of the petitioner was cemented and that is did not require repairs. There is an affidavit by Bimla Devi, wife of the petitioner, on the file which is Annexure P-1which shows that she was living in a house along with her four minor children, the condition of which was not good and the same could collapse at any time, if not repaired. This affidavit is duly attested by the Sarpanch of the village and one Member Panchayat and also bears seal of the Gram Panchayat. The mere fact that the opposite party aprehended danger at the hands of the petitioner is no ground to decline the prayer of the petitioner for his release, as the opposite party having strained relations, will always desire that the convict remains behind the bars. The petitioner has already availed one parole peacefully and he never gave any cause to complain to any one. Since he is maintaining good conduct in jail, he is entitled to release on parole.
(3.) AS a result, I allow this petition and direct the respondent to release the petitioner for four weeks on parole so that he may repair his house. The petitioner will furnish bail bonds to the satisfacation of District Magistrate, Rohtak.;