Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner fulfills all the conditions imposed under Section 4 of the Act, as he has undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of three years. His conduct throughout the said period remained good and he has not committed any jail offence. In spite of that, respondent No.1 has declined the benefit of temporary release on furlough to the petitioner on the unsustainable ground that his release will result into breach of peace or there can be loss to the life and liberty of the opposite party. Learned counsel, while referring to the written statement, submits that when the petitioner had availed four weeks parole from 25.3.2009 to 23.4.2009 under Section 3 of the Act, he did not indulge in any illegal activity. During that period, he neither caused any breach of peace nor threatened the life and liberty of the complainant party. Thus, the apprehension shown by the respondent, while declining the temporary release of the petitioner on furlough is mis-founded and without any substance. Therefore, rejection of the temporary release of the petitioner on furlough on the said ground is totally illegal and arbitrary and against the spirit and object of the aforesaid provisions of law.
