- (1.) The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Faridabad. He has been convicted and sentenced in case FIR No.315 dated 19.11.2009 registered at Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks temporary release on furlough in terms of Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) for three weeks and for setting aside the order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P1) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.1) declining temporary release on furlough to him.
(2.) The petitioner made a request to the jail authorities for his release on furlough. The request was initiated on 30.05.2014. However, his case has been rejected vide impugned order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P1) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.1). It is, inter alia, stated in the impugned order that according to police report, the conduct of the petitioner has not been found satisfactory during the period of his previous release on parole. He got involved in case FIR No.158 dated 20.06.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 448, 307, 506 and 511 IPC, besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act. Therefore, agreeing with the report of the Distict Magistrate, Faridabad, the temporary release on furlough has been declined to the petitioner. At the time of preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, in fact, had been acquitted in the said criminal case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 02.04.2014. Notice was issued to the respondents. Sh. H.S.Deol, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has filed reply of Sh. Deepak Sharma, Superintendent, District Jail, Faridabad on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. The same is taken on record. Alongwith the reply, the report dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure R1) of District Magistrate, Faridabad and order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure R2) of Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, which is impugned as Annexure P1, has also been filed. In terms of the reply, it is submitted that the furlough case of the petitioner has been declined as District Magistrate, Faridabad did not recommend the case of the petitioner on the ground that a report was received from the Superintendent of Police, NIT, Faridabad that the last time when the convict (petitioner) was released on parole, his behaviour was not found satisfactory and case FIR No.158 dated 20.06.2012 was registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 448,307, 506 and 511 IPC, besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act. It has also been mentioned in the report that if the petitioner was released on furlough, there was likely to be breach of peace and the petitioner may also be in danger. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record.
(3.) The primary reason for declining temporary release on furlough to the petitioner is that on his previous release, he was involved in a criminal case in respect of which FIR No.158 dated 20.06.2012 was registered. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has since been acquitted in the said case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 02.04.2014 i.e., before the report dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure R1) of the District Magistrate, Faridabad. In the said report dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure R1), the fact of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is not mentioned. However, the other grounds which are mentioned are that there is likelihood of breach of peace and there is danger to the petitioner.;