Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2885 P&H

   CRWP-534-2020                                                                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                   CRWP-534-2020
                                         Date of Decision:05.10.2021

Sukhdev Singh

                                                                           ...Petitioner
                                       Versus
State of Punjab and others
                                                                        ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH

Present:     Ms. Bhupinder Pal Kaur Brar, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. IPS Doabia, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

             [The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the
             proceedings are being conducted in virtual court.]


SANT PARKASH, J.

Instant petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside the order dated

13.11.2019(P-1) passed by respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Moga,

whereby case of the petitioner seeking parole has been rejected.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in FIR No.146

dated 28.08.2014, under Sections 25/15/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered

at Police Station, Doraha, District Ludhiana and accordingly, he has been

convicted and sentenced to undergo 12 years imprisonment. Against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner filed an appeal

before this Court, which is still pending admitted for final adjudication.

It is argued that the petitioner applied for 06 weeks' parole as

per the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners

(Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and his case was sent to

1 of 4

the District Magistrate, Moga, after completing all the formalities. But the

parole case of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 13.11.2019

(Annexure P-1), on the ground that there is danger to peace, law and order

and there is every apprehension that he may abscond and again indulge in

drugs activities.

On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposes the

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for

dismissal of instant petition.

We have given our thoughtful considerations to the matter. As

already noticed, the petitioner is undergoing 12 years imprisonment for

having committed offences punishable under Sections 25/15/61/85 of the

NDPS Act. During his incarceration in jail, he has sought temporary release

in terms of Section 3(1) (d) of the Act, 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: -

(a) to (c) xxxxxx

(d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause."

In terms of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act where the prisoner is to

be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section

(1) the period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by

the State Government so as not to exceed four weeks. Section 6 of the Act

provides that "consultation with District Magistrate is not necessary where

prisoners are not to be released". Sub-section (ii) of Section 6 reads as

follows:-

2 of 4

"6 (ii). No prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or anofficer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that, that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order."

In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, it is crystal clear that

while considering the request of the petitioner for grant of parole,

discretion has been bestowed upon the concerned Officer/State

Government. It clearly indicates that the release on parole of a convict

cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the legislature has used the word

'may' not 'shall'.

From the perusal of the case file, it would be revealed that the

petitioner is undergoing 12 years' imprisonment for having committed

offences punishable under Sections 25/15/61/85 of the NDPS Act. The case

of the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of report of Senior

Superintendent of Police, Moga, where he has shown apprehension of

convict's absconding from parole and again indulging in smuggling of

narcotic substances. The petitioner committed a heinous crime and if such

type of convict is enlarged on parole, there is every possibility that he can

misuse the concession of parole.

Otherwise also, it is the subjective satisfaction of the authority

concerned to evaluate the circumstances seeking parole. Unless and until

some arbitrariness or malafide is apparent in the order of the said authority,

only then, this Court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in

the matter as the same has been considered after taking into consideration

3 of 4

all the facts collected for considering the request of the petitioner for

releasing him on parole. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is

dismissed.

(JASWANT SINGH)                                     (SANT PARKASH)
    JUDGE                                               JUDGE

05.10.2021
mks               Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO
                  Whether Reportable:        YES / NO




                                     4 of 4