BABBU SINGH ALIAS TIDDA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner's (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the petitioner for a period of eight weeks to meet his family members and look after them.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was convicted in FIR No.9 dtd. 21/1/2018, under Sec. 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala, vide judgment and order of sentence dtd. 22/9/2021 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and against the said judgment, an appeal has been filed before this Court, which has been admitted and the petitioner has been in custody since the more than last 1 year and 10 months. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for parole and his case was forwarded to respondent No.2 and the same was rejected, vide impugned order dtd. 4/7/2022. It is argued that the impugned order dtd. 4/7/2022 was passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures, inasmuch as, in the said order, it had been stated that in case the petitioner is released on parole, then, he might maintain contact with drugs smugglers and also sell intoxicant substances and could also commit any crime. It is stated that there is no tangible material relied upon to come to the said conclusion. It is further stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, except the present case, regarding which an appeal is pending. 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 may contact drug smugglers and sell intoxicant substances and has thus, stated that the impugned order has been rightly passed.