M.L.KOUL,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and bestowed my thoughtful consideration over the record on the file.
(2.) I have gone through the reply filed by the respondent-State. It inter alia contends that the complainant and the witnesses have no objection for the temporary release of the convict-petitioner but the Gram Panchayat has expressed its apprehension that if the convict-petitioner is released on parole, there is every likelihood of breach of peace taking place in the area. This is a fallacious objection raised by the District Magistrate, Faridkot and this ground for refusal of parole is not covered under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is the paramount duty of the District Administration i.e. the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to maintain peace in the district and they are being paid by the Government for this purpose also. If there is any apprehension of breach of peace in the area on the release of a convict on temporary parole it is District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of the District who have to maintain the peace in the area under rules. It is well said by this Court many a time that breach of peace is not a good ground for refusing the grant of parole to a convict. Henceforth the District Magistrate shall see that on this ground of apprehension of breach of peace, no convict is refused the parole asked for. They can otherwise refuse the same for certain other reasons which ever are governed under the Act.
(3.) HOWEVER , it is argued by Mr. Tiwana that the fresh application for grant of parole to the petitioner is pending with the district authorities. They are directed to dispose of that parole matter within 15 days and on no count the parole can be refused to the petitioner on the ground of breach of peace.;