Shinder Singh @ Tota vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1535 P&H

CRWP-1883-2022 (O&M)



250

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.


                                        CRWP-1883-2022 (O&M).
                                        Decided on: March 11, 2022.


Shinder Singh @ Tota

                                                                 .. Petitioner

                             VERSUS


State of Punjab and others
                                                              .. Respondents

                                        ***

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

                                        ***

PRESENT            Mr.Prateek Pandit, Advocate,
                   for the petitioner.

                   Mr.Randhir Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue writ in the nature

of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 20.7.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed

by the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Kapurthala,

whereby the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of parole has been

declined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner was convicted under the NDPS Act and out of total sentence of 10

1 of 4

CRWP-1883-2022 (O&M)

years, he has already gone 4½ years. Thereafter, an appeal has been filed

against the aforesaid judgment which is pending before this Court. He

submitted that the petitioner had made an application to the authorities

concerned for the grant of parole for his domestic purposes and meeting the

family members stating that he had undergone substantive part of his

sentence and there is no previous misconduct on the part of the petitioner

while in jail. However, there were four other cases involving a very small

quantity under the NDPS Act, against the petitioner. He submitted that

parole application has been dismissed only on the ground that he was earlier

involved in 4 other cases and by recording an observation that in case the

petitioner is released on parole, then there is every likelihood that he may

repeat the offence. The learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court

in Manga @ Manga Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, CRWP-4593-

2020, decided on 26.8.2020 and also a Division Bench judgment of this

Court in Ram Chander Vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (3) RCR (Criminal) 340,

to contend that such kind of reasoning is not a justifiable reasoning for

declining the parole and the application can be declined only when the

parametres contained under the Act itself are satisfied with regard to the

security and sovereignty of the State etc. and the case of the petitioner was

covered by judgments of this Court in Manga @ Manga Singh and Ram

Chander (supra). He submitted that petitioner was also suffering from acute

medical problems including Hepatitis C for which he was being given

treatment and he was not keeping good health and therefore, this Court

directed the State to verify the same and an affidavit has now since been

2 of 4

CRWP-1883-2022 (O&M)

filed by the State, after the petitioner was got examined from the Board of

Doctors wherein it was found that general condition of the petitioner is good

although he is suffering from Hepatitis C and can be given treatment from

the Government Hospital. He submitted that although as per the report of

the Board of Doctors, condition of the petitioner is good and he will not be

entitled for parole on the medical reasons but so far as impugned order

dated 20.7.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Deputy

Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Kapurthala, is concerned, this is

totally contrary to the law laid down by this Court in aforesaid two

judgments.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted

that although reply to the main petition has not been filed in the present case

but he has no objection in case the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District

Magistrate, Kapurthala, is directed to decide the application of parole filed

by the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The only ground on the basis of which the application for

parole filed by the petitioner was dismissed was that he was earlier involved

in similar matters under the NDPS Act, pertaining to small quantity and

there was an apprehension that in case he is released then he may repeat the

offence. Such kind of ground is neither feasible nor sustainable in law and

the same has been so held vide judgments of this Court in Manga @ Manga

Singh and Ram Chander (supra).

In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the

3 of 4

CRWP-1883-2022 (O&M)

impugned order dated 20.7.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned

Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Kapurthala, is hereby set

aside. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Kapurthala, is

directed to decide the application of the petitioner for the grant of parole

afresh by considering the law laid down by this Court in Manga @ Manga

Singh and and Ram Chander (supra).

Let the decision be taken within a period of three weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

March 11, 2022.                      (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
raj arora                                      JUDGE
                   Whether speaking / reasoned     Yes / No
                   Whether reportable              Yes / No






                               4 of 4