GOVINDA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant parole for eight weeks, who is presently undergoing sentence at Central Jail, Ludhiana under Sec. 3(1)(c) read with Sec. (d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') for meeting and looking after his minor children, old aged ailing widow mother and for repairing his house. He has further challenged the order dtd. 13/11/2021 (Annexure P-1) whereby his application for grant of eight weeks' parole has been rejected by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner was arrested in FIR No.26 dtd. 16/3/2019 under Secs. 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') registered at Police Station Sadar Banga and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years vide order dtd. 25/3/2021, therefore, he is presently undergoing 10 years imprisonment. The peitioner has filed CRA-S-785 of 2021 before this Court against his conviction order dtd. 25/3/2021 passed by the trial Court, which is pending adjudication. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner has already undergone more than 03 years 06 months of sentence. The work and conduct of the petitioner remained good and satisfactory and he has not committed any jail offence. Further, the petitioner has not earlier availed concession of parole/furlough during his long custody in jail. It is further averred that it has been held by this Court that after undergoing three years sentence, a prisoner requires some recess and he should be allowed to meet his family members. Moreover, after undergoing three years sentence a prisoner is entitled to avail parole for eight weeks, if he maintains good conduct in jail. Father of the petitioner has already expired and he has left behind his wife, two minor children who are living with his old aged mother who often remains ill and there is no able member in the family to take her to the hospital for medical treatment. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner has to make the necessary arrangements of the funds as he wants to repair his house and he further wants to meet his family members who are passing through difficult days of their life because there is no earning member in the family of the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for parole for eight weeks under the Act and his case was duly recommended by respondent No.3 for holding inquiry from the local police through the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police.

(3.) However, the said claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, vide order dtd. 13/11/2021 (Annexure P-1) by stating 'if Govinda (petitioner) is released on parole then he can start selling the drugs again.' Reasoning for rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the impugned order dtd. 13/11/2021 is as under: -