NISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ for directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for eight weeks for socializing and meeting with his family members under Sec. 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner's (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, as amended up to date.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was convicted in FIR No.25 dtd. 13/4/2015 under Sec. 21/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Khemkaran, for a period of 10 years and also in FIR No.26 dtd. 23/4/2015 under Sec. 21/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Khemkaran, District Tarn Taran for a period of 10 years. It is further submitted that the appeals in both the said cases have been admitted and are pending consideration. It is also submitted that the present petitioner has been granted the concession of suspension of sentence in the appeal, arising out of conviction in FIR No.26 dtd. 23/4/2015 and that the petitioner had applied for eight weeks' parole before respondent No.5 to meet and socialize with his family members under Sec. 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Priosner's (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, as there is no male member in the family of the petitioner, as his father has already expired and he does not have any brother and thus, the petitioner wanted to take care of and to meet his old aged mother, his wife, one unmarried sister and one minor son and that the case was forwarded by respondent No.5 to respondent No.3-District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran, vide letter dtd. 5/4/2021 and respondent No.3 directed the respondent No.4-Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran to look into the matter, vide letter dtd. 15/4/2021 and respondent No.4 had submitted its report dtd. 5/5/2021 in pursuance of the same and even though had stated in the report that there is no threat to the State's security and maintenance of public order, yet, respondent No.4 did not recommended the case of the petitioner on the ground that there was no responsible member to take responsibility of the petitioner and on the basis of the same, respondent No.3 rejected the case of the petitioner, vide impugned order dtd. 16/6/2021 (Annexure P-2). It is submitted that the second reason given in the order was that the petitioner would indulge in smuggling because he is a smuggler. It is submitted that the said observation in the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and there is no material to show that the petitioner would indulge in smuggling, if released. It is contended that there was a panchayatnama (Annexure P-6), which has been signed by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mastgarh, Block Valtoha, District Tarn Taran and Namberdar, village Mastgarh, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran in favour of the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has been arrested in above-said FIR No.25 on 17/4/2015 and was in custody till 29/7/2016 and thereafter, since 20/8/2021 he has been in custody and he has never misused the same. It is also submitted that coaccused of the petitioner in FIR No.26 had also applied for parole of eight weeks' and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow eight weeks' parole, vide order dtd. 16/12/2021 passed in CRWP-6653-2021. 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 the impugned order has been rightly passed and there is every likelihood that in case, the petitioner is released, then, he would indulge in smuggling and there is no responsible person who has taken the responsibility of the present petitioner.