Allahabad HC APS special (No 7)

 

Original Judgment 

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.

8. As already noticed, the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in case FIR No. 156 dated 17.05.2009 registered at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He has been convicted in the said case and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Criminal appeal, i.e. CRA-D No. 954-DB of 2010, filed by the petitioner is pending in this Court.

9. The provisions of the Act provide for the temporary release of prisoners for good conduct on certain conditions as enacted by the legislature of the State of Punjab. Temporary release on parole is granted on certain conditions as envisaged by the provisions of Section 3 of the Act; besides, temporary release on furlough is granted in terms of Section 4 of the Act. In terms of Section 5A of the Act, prisoners are not entitled to temporary release in certain cases, like cases where death sentence has been awarded or a prisoner is a 'hardcore prisoner'. 'Hardcore prisoner' has been defined in Section 2 (aa) of the Act as follows:

"(aa) "hardcore prisoner" means a person confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment, who has been convicted of (i) An offence of rape with murder under section 376 read with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;

(ii) An offence punishable under section 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;"

10. The petitioner does not fall under the said category and therefore, is not a hardcore prisoner. Besides, Section 6(2) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, no person is entitled to be released under the Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, 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 or the mainte nance of public order.

11. Therefore, release of a prisoner on parole can be declined in case his release on parole is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The recommendation made by the District Magistrate, Unnao (respondent No.3) for not releasing the petitioner on parole is merely that the petitioner is under going life imprisonment in a case like murder, so there is a probability that he may commit a crime on release on parole. The likelihood of committing a crime while on parole would not be a sufficient ground to decline temporary release on parole as mere likelihood of committing crime is not to be taken as apprehension of a threat to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. As already noticed, parole can be declined in case the competent authority is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State and maintenance of public order. No such eventuality has been mentioned in the present case.

12. This Court in case of 'Varun @ Gullu v. State of Haryana and others', CRM M. No. 34013 of 2009, decided on 26.04.2010, has held as under: "No doubt parole or furlough is a concession granted to a prisoner, but grant of such concession is regulated by a statute and on fulfilment of conditions prescribed therein, a prisoner is entitled to parole. The concession of releasing a prisoner on parole or furlough is circumscribed by a statute; therefore, the release of a prisoner is in exercise of the right created under that statute. Therefore, the authorities under the Act cannot act arbitrarily, capriciously or without due ap-plication of mind.