In a writ petition for parole to repair his house, the High Court held that the petitioner's release was properly denied under Section 6 due to community apprehension of breach of public peace following his rape conviction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Writ Petition No.1236 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Writ Petition No.1236 of 2010 Date of decision:- 20.8.2010
Balwant Singh alias Babbu
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present:Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab.
RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral)
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(d) of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short the 'Act') read with Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963 (for short the 'Rules') has been filed for release of petitioner on parole for conducting repair of his house.
Reply filed on behalf of State.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole has been declined by the competent authority without sufficient cause and without application of mind.
On the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for the State that under the Rules competent authority sought recommendation of the District Magistrate and that as per the
Criminal Writ Petition No.1236 of 2010
-2-
report of the Superintendent of police, after inquiry, it was found that the petitioner has committed rape upon a girl of unsound mind of the same village and hence, release on parole of the petitioner at this stage is likely to result in breach of public peace in the village and hence it is contended that it cannot be said that the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for releasing him on parole is not based on sufficient grounds.
Section 3 of the Act provides for release of a convict on parole, which reads as under:-
“3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds :- (1) The State Government may in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section(2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that:-
Criminal Writ Petition No.1236 of 2010
-3-
section (1), two weeks;
(b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and
(c ) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c ) of subSection (1), six weeks.
(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2), where a prisoner undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment, is to be released on the ground specified in Clause (d) of sub-section (1); he may be released for a period of six months or less in parts, during the five years.
The application was given to the Superintendent Jail under the Rules and thereafter recommendation of the District Magistrate was sought by the competent authority.
Section 6 of the Act deals with the cases in which parole can be declined by the competent authority, which reads as under:-
“6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases. - 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 any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or
Criminal Writ Petition No.1236 of 2010
-4-
the maintenance of public order.”
Hence, competent authority can decline the request to release the petitioner on parole if the release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.
In the present case the allegations against the petitioneraccused are that he being married committed rape upon a girl of unsound mind of the same village. Hence, on inquiry by Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, it came out that parents of the girl as well as villagers objected for his release and that there was apprehension of breach of public peace in case the petitioner is released on parole. Hence, the present case is fully covered under Section 6 of the Act as release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the maintenance of public order.
Therefore, it cannot be said that request of petitioner has been declined by the competent authority without any sufficient cause warranting interference by this Court.
There is no merit in this petition. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
August 20, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should have interfered when the competent authority declined the petitioner's parole request due to apprehension of breach of public peace.
Whether the requirements of Section 3(1)(d) and Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 were satisfied in the facts of the case.
Whether the petitioner's contention that the rejection was without sufficient cause warrants judicial intervention.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Balwant Singh alias Babbu
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
