JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Magistrate, Kapurthala-Respondent No.3, vide which request of Petitioner for temporary release to meet his family and taking care of family members under Section 3 (1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act of 1962') has been rejected on the ground that there is danger to complainant party and he can run away and there is apprehension to breach of peace on his coming on parole besides there can be a law and order situation.

2. A perusal of the paper book reveal that the Petitioner is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for life with fine Rs. 55,000/- in default, RI for 2 years and 03 months in case FIR No. 167 dated 28.07.2013 under Sections 302 , 120-B, 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 25 of ARMS ACT , registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District, Kapurthala and the said conviction had been challenged vide appeal number CRA-D-694-DB of 2022, which is pending before this Court.

3. Upon notice of motion being issued on 23.09.2022, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed their reply way of an affidavit dated 03.01.2023, wherein it has been submitted that the request moved by the Petitioner for grant of parole had been rejected on the ground that there is danger to complainant party and he can run away. Further stated that there is apprehension to breach of peace on his coming on parole besides an apprehension that there can be a law and order situation.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that conduct of Petitioner inside Jail is good. The Petitioner is inside jail for more than five years. Parole to the Petitioner cannot be refused on the ground that there is danger to complainant party or he can run away. He submitted that the apprehension alleged qua breach of peace on his coming on parole or there can be a law and order situation, is imaginary. It is the duty of police and the District Magistrate to give protection to the public.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer made by Petitioner by way of reply dated 03.01.2023. It is submitted that the Petitioner has undergone imprisonment of 07 years 11 months and 14 days of actual custody as on 09.01.2023 including 01 years, 02 months and 29 days as custody after conviction. The parole case of the Petitioner was duly initiated and was rejected by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Kapurthala, on the basis of verification report of Senior Superintendent of Police Kapurthala, stating that there is risk to the opposite party due to grant of parole to the Petitioner and there is a risk of breach of law and danger of disturbing the peace and atmosphere. He further contends that case FIR No. 612 dated 01.12.2022 under Sections 42 , 52-A PRISONS ACT 1894 has been registered against the Petitioner for the possession of mobile phone inside the prison. The conduct of the Petitioner inside the prison is not good. He further submitted that 5 other cases are also registered against the Petitioner. Hence, it was urged that the petition did not deserves to be allowed.

6. After considering the respective submissions and perusing the record, it transpires that the only reason given by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Kapurthala, for rejecting the prayer made by the Petitioner is that there is risk to the opposite party due to grant of parole to the Petitioner and there is a risk of breach of law and danger of disturbing the peace and atmosphere. This apprehension is based on the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala. During th