JAGDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 4/5/2022 passed by respondent no.3 rejecting the parole case of the petitoner with a further prayer to issue directions to respondents to release the petitioner on parole for 8 weeks to meet his family members and to settle household affairs.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was convicted in FIR no.207 dtd. 22/12/2017 registered under Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (in short "NDPS Act") at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1.00 lac by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 9/9/2021 and the petitioner is undergoing the said sentence and the criminal appeal filed against the same is pending. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since the last more than 3 years and had applied for 8 weeks parole before the jail authorities under Sec. 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962 (Amended Act 2015) (in short "the Act") to meet him his family members and also to look after the house affairs and the said case was initiated and respondent no.4 had recommended 8 weeks parole case of the petitioner and forwarded the same to respondent no.3 and respondent no.2. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order by observing that the petitioner, from whom recovery of 40 injections of brufin and 40 injections of avil was effected, would indulge in the business of drugs in case the concession of parole is granted to him. It has also been observed that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and thus, the observation made in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner is a habitual offender, is illegal and against the law. It is further submitted that it has been repeatedly held by various courts that merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the grant of parole can not be denied to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has two minor daughters and one old mother and his wife is suffering from HIV and thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of parole. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case titled as "Jugraj Singh @ Bhola Vs. State of Punjab and others", reported as 2010(25) R.C.R. (Criminal) 138 as well as judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Jeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported as 2020(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 516.

(3.) Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the present petition and has submitted that since the petitioner has been convicted under the NDPS Act, thus, the authorities found that there is every possibility that he might indulge in drug business and has thus, stated that the impugned order has been rightly passed.