KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks his release on parole for six weeks for agriculture purpose under section 3(l)(C) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that he has undergone more than three years' actual sentence under section 302, IPC and he had applied for six weeks' parole on 8.1.1996, but the said prayer was declined.

(2.) In the return filed, a preliminary objection was raised that the petition is not maintainable as no fundamental right is infringed and that no prisoner can claim parole as a matter of right. The District Magistrate, Kurukshetra verified the facts and has not favoured the release of the petitioner on parole on the ground that the petitioner is convicted for the murder of his real brother and there is tension in the village and there is apprehension of commission of a serious offence in case the petitioner is released on parole.

(3.) Section 6 of the Act states that notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State of the maintenance of public order. This shows that the petitioner can be released under section 3 or 4 of the Act. If his release is not likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the release of the petitioner on parole in any way is likely to endanger security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The grounds given by the respondent-State not recommending his parole are not relevant or can not be valid grounds for denying him the temporary release. Section 6 of the Act, discussed above, refers to the grounds of the release to be declined, but there is no material on the record produced by the District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police to show that release of the petitioner is likely to endanger maintenance of the public order. The Act has been enacted with a view to inculcate discipline and good conduct amongst the prisoners while in jail. The discretionary power granted to the Public Officer should be exercised in the manner required by law in favour of the petitioner so as to further the purpose of the Act. The purpose so exercised by the Authorities concerned should not be looked upon as an act of charity, compassion or clemency or as a dole or a favour but as an act in the discharge of legal duty required to be performed upon the fulfilment of prescribed conditions to effectuate the salutary provisions of the Act. The expression "security of State." and "public order" occur in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and these expressions have been the subject-matter of judicial consideration and have acquired a precise meaning. The security of the State is endangered by crimes of violence, intended to over throw the Government, waging of war and rebellion against the Government, external aggression or war or such like acts but not minor breaches of public peace or tranquillity such as unlawful assembly, riot, affray et cetera. The concept of 'public order' is distinguishable from the popular concept of law and order' and of 'security of the State'. An activity which affects law and order may not necessarily endanger the security of State. Though these twin grounds of endangering security of State and public order may or may not be exhaustive of the grounds for refusing temporary release, but these grounds go a long way to suggest that the grounds for refusal must be these and like grounds. The stand of the State that in the event of visiting the village by the convict while on parole there is apprehension of commission of a serious offence is a very flimsy ground and an imaginary one and seems to have been made out in order to deprive the petitioner of his legal right to seek temporary release or has been made a ground to justify the refusal of the benefit of temporary release contemplated under the Act. It may be mentioned here, that the Act itself contains in built safeguards and the temporary release is subject to certain conditions which may be imposed before the temporary release. The release is not to exceed 3 to 6 weeks under section 3 of the Act and cannot be availed more than once during the year. The period of temporary release is not counted towards the total period of sentence of the prisoner. Under Section 8(1) of the Act, the prisoner on the expiry of the period for which he is released under this Act, has to surrender himself to the Superintendent of Jail from which he was released and under section 8(2) of the Act, if the prisoner does not surrender himself within a period of ten days from the date on which he should have surrendered, he is liable to be arrested by the police without a warrant in order to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence and, further, a maximum cut of five days' remission for each day of over-stay has been imposed. Besides, he is to be denied the canteen concessions for a maximum period of one month. A penalty has been imposed under Section 9 of the Act for failure to surrender. Therefore, from the above discussion, it emerges that adequate safeguards to ensure that on the expiry of the period of temporary release of the petitioner, surrenders to the jail custody to undergo the remaining sentence. The recent trend in criminology is towards reformation and not to hate the criminal but the crime, to provide him with all the facilities to enable him to socialize with his family members and also given him an opportunity to come into contact with the other members of the society outside the cold walls of the jail so that he may also for sometime breathe fresh air outside the boundary of the jail and feel the warm affection and love of his family members and give the same to his family members himself. The aim is not to keep him confined all the with obdurate criminals which may have bad effect on his social out look towards society. The prisoner is not stripped of his fundamental, or other legal rights, save these which are inconsistent with his incarceration, and if any of those rights is violated, the Court cannot be a distant spectator but is to spring into action to see that the aim and objection of the Act is carried out in its letter and spirit. He is to be permitted to socialize with the members of the family and friends, subject, of course, to all valid prison regulations under the Act. The main object is to see that the prisoner comes out of the jail as a different man than the one when he went to the jail. If a criminal comes out of the jail as a better citizen it will go a long way to bring peace in the society. The society is to be reformed and got rid of the criminal persons so as to bring stability, peace, tranquillity, business and prosperity in the society. Many a time, crime is the responsibility of socio-economic milieu and it is the duty of the agencies maintaining the public order and running criminal justice system to see that the crimes are minimized, The prison in modern terms in real sense is no longer a prison of old times but an institution of reformation churning out good citizens from bad ones.