S.S. Saron, J.

1. The petitioner Sagar Kumar by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks setting aside of the order dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Fazilka (respondent No.2) whereby six weeks parole prayed for by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka on 20.4.2016 for the offences under Sections 376-D/34 Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ – for short); besides, Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ – for short). He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also pay a fine. The petitioner at present is undergoing his life imprisonment at District Jail, Sri Muktsar Sahib. Against the said order of conviction and sentence, a criminal appeal i.e. CRA No.D-503-DB of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner which is pending in this Court.

3. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner applied for six weeks parole to meet his family members which has been declined by the impugned order dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-1). The said order, as already noticed, is assailed in the present petition.

4. Reply has been filed by way of affidavit of Smt. Isha Kalia, District Magistrate, Fazilka (respondent No.2). It is submitted that respondent No.2 received letter No.2558 dated 15.08.2016 from the Superintendent, District Jail Sri Muktsar Sahib in which a request was made to recommend parole to the petitioner. A report was sought on the said request from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka. The latter vide letter No.7631/AC-3 dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure R-1/T) stated that there was apprehension of breach of peace, besides, the local police objected to the release of the petitioner on parole. Therefore, temporary release of the petitioner on parole was not recommended.

5. It is also submitted that the petitioner falls under the category of a ‘hardcore prisoner’ as he has been convicted for an offence under the POCSO Act. Therefore, in terms of Section 5A of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (‘the Act’ - for short), a ‘hardcore prisoner’ is not to be released on parole.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the temporary release of the petitioner on parole has been rejected in view of the report dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure R1/T) of the Senior Superintendent of Police. It is submitted that the said report makes a mention that the petitioner and his family reside in the same village Moujgarh and the girl i.e. the girl with whom the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence, is still unmarried and that in the event of release of the petitioner, there is apprehension of breach of peace. In fact, the matter between the two parties i.e. the petitioner and the victim has been compromised and a compromise dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) was entered into. Therefore, there is no question of any apprehension of breach of peace in the event of the petitioner being released on parole.

7. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that notwithstanding the alleged compromise (Annexure P-2), the petitioner is nevertheless a ‘hardcore prisoner’ as defined under Section 2 (aa) of the Act.

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. The temporary release of the petitioner has been declined on the ground that in the event of his release, there is likelihood of breach of peace as the girl against whom he is said to have committed the offences is still unmarried and is residing in the same village; besides, the petitioner is a ‘hardcore prisoner’. Section 5A of the Act, which disentitles a ‘hardcore prisoner’ for temporary release may be noticed, which reads as under:-

"5A Prisoner not entitled to be released in certain cases.

Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, -

(a) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released unde