A.P.CHOWDHRI, J. - (1.) DHARAMBIR (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Bhiwani. He sent an application through the fail addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. The application has been treated as Criminal Writ Petition. On notice to the respondents, written statement has been filed by Sh. Randhir Singh, Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani. He has stated that the case for parole of the petitioner was initiated and as the petitioner belongs to a village in Union Territory of Delhi the case was sent to District Magistrate, Delhi, for his comments.
(2.) THE District Magistrate, Delhi, after enquiry observed that the ground for parole urged by the petitioner was not "sound" in that there were other persons in the family who could undertake repair of the house. He also stated that the release of the petitioner on parole "can endanger the maintenance of public order". It has further been stated that the conduct of the petitioner inside jail has been bad and he has one jail offence to his credit. After considering the matter, I find that the report does not go so far as to show that the petitioner does not own a house or that the same has not fallen on account of heavy rains as alleged by the petitioner. Instead what is suggested, is that there were other members of the family who could undertake repairs. Other members of the family have not been defined and it is left to one's imagination as to which members of the family are implied. The next observation of the learned District Magistrate, Delhi, is as vague as it can be. It is to the effect that the release of the petitioner on parole "can end anger the maintenance of public order". The expression "public order" is well understood and no person much less a person holding a responsible Position as District Magistrate can employ that expression without realising its importance. There are no supporting facts or circumstances that the release of the petitioner will endanger maintenance of public order. My conclusion, therefore, is that the prayer has been opposed for no sound reasons.
(3.) THE order rejecting the prayer is altogether arbitrary and cannot be countenanced. The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on four weeks parole under section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, as applicable to the State of Haryana, on his furnishing bond and surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Deputy Magistrate, Bhiwani. The petitioner be informed in the jail.;