H.S.BEDI, J. - (1.) REPLY has been filed in Court. The petitioner who was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life on March 12, 1987, is presently undergoing the sentence in the Women's Jail at Ludhiana, submitted an application to the Jail Authority praying for the grant of parole for a period of four weeks. This application was duly forwarded by the Jail Authorities to respondent No.1 on 30th December, 1991 but was ultimately rejected on 30.6.1993. The petitioner made a request for the supply of a copy of the said order but the same too was declined. Aggrieved by the rejection of her case, the petitioner has moved this Court for the grant of parole primarily on the ground that no reasons have been conveyed to her which led to the rejection of her case and that the order was bad as it did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release ) Act, 1962.
(2.) IN the reply filed to the petition, it has been admitted that the work and conduct of the petitioner while in jail had been satisfactory and that the case had been rejected by the Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, as the District Authorities had conveyed an adverse report pertaining to her release. As the reply filed was rather vague, I adjourned the matter for providing the translations of the reports of the S.S.P/District Magistrate concerned. Mr. Gill, learned Asst. Advocate-General, Punjab, has produced the aforesaid documents before me today and it transpires from these documents that the District Authorities had recorded that it would not be proper to release her on parole as the petitioner was a woman of bad character and that she had murdered her husband with the connivance of her daughter Paramjit Kaur because he used to object to their immoral behaviour. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the present petition deserves to succeed. Under Section 6 of the Act, temporary release can be denied to a prisoner only in the eventuality that the release of such a prisoner would endanger the security of the State or public order. The reasons recorded by the District authorities for not recommending her case for release do not fall within these two expressions. Assuming that the allegations made against the petitioner are entirely correct, yet they do not endanger the security of the State or prejudice public order though they may be morally reprehensible.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner for temporary release on parole within a period of two months from today, failing which the petitioner will be released for a period of four weeks.;