The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of parole should be based on sufficient evidence indicating that the release of the convicts is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order, and apprehension of breach of peace is not sufficient grounds for denial of parole.

Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Makhan Singh and Jarnail Singh-petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the designated Court, Sangrur on April 19, 1998 in case FIR No. 17 dated 11.3.1992 registered under Sections 382/307 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (in short TADA) and Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Longowal.

2. Sukhdev Singh, father of Makhan Singh-petitioner No. 1 moved an application before the Superintendent District Jail, Nabha on May 8, 1999 for the release of his son on parole, enabling him to arrange for the eye operation of his 4 year old son, who is suffering from an eye injury. Copy of the application is Annexure P/2 and copy of the certificate issued by the doctor is Annexure P/1. Similarly, an application Annexure P/3 was moved by Manjit Kaur, wife of Jarnail Singh-petitioner No. 2 that she is required to be operated upon for some malgrowth in the pelvic region. She is the only lady in the house, therefore, her husband may be released on parole enabling him to take care of her. The certificate issued by the Medical Officer is Annexure P/4 whereby Manjit Kaur has been advised surgery - USG for pelvic region. The applications moved by the father of Makhan Singh, Annexure P/2 and wife of Jarnail Singh, Annexure P/3 were declined vide orders Annexures P/6 and P/7 mainly on the ground that there is apprehension of breach of peace as per the inquiry conducted by the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders Annexure P/6 and P/7 and directing release of the petitioners for six weeks medical parole under Section 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

3. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint reply, have admitted that the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to five years R.I. besides fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 5 of TADA and that the case of the petitioner for parole was initiated on June 1, 1999 by respondent No. 3. The petition has been resisted mainly on the ground that the Court had earlier dismissed the Criminal Misc. No. 14444-M of 1994 (Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab) on 12.12.1994 and Criminal Misc. No. 19891-M of 1994 on 9.3.1995, holding that the case of the convict for parole cannot be considered before he undergoes the sentence awarded to him under the Act. It is, however, admitted that in Criminal Misc. No. 552-M of 1999, this High Court had granted parole to the petitioner in that case. The case in hand has been considered and rejected mainly on the ground that there is apprehension of breach of peace.

4. I have heard Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. I.P.S. Sidhu, A.A.G. for the State of Punjab.

5. For proper appreciation of the case, Section 3 and 6 of the Act are reproduced as under :-

"3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds :-

(1) The State 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 :-

(a) a member of the prisoners family had died or is seriously ill."

6. The petitioners have moved their respective applications for release on medical grounds, which is reflected in the applications Annexure P/2 and P/3 supported by the medical certificates issued by the concerned doctors, copies whereof are Annexure P/1 and P/4.

7. Parole of a convict can be denied in the circumstances mentioned under Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under :-

"6. Prisoners not entitled to be released on 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 authori