GINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India read with Sec. 3(1)(d) of The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1962') for issuance of directions to respondents for grant of parole for a period of 08 weeks to the petitioner and for quashing the impugned order dtd. 5/2/2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2, vide which, the case of the petitioner for grant of parole has been declined.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned order dtd. 5/2/2024 (Annexure P-1) has been passed in a mechanical manner on the ground that on earlier occasion, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender. He further contends that there is no legislative mandate to reject the case of a convict for temporary release on the apprehension that in case, the petitioner is released, he can indulge in smuggling of intoxicating substances. He furthermore contends that there is no legal mandate to reject the case of the petitioner for temporary release only on the aforementioned ground. He submits that the petitioner was convicted for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Sec. 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and he has undergone actual custody of more than 08 years. He further relies upon the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CRWP-5395-2023 decided on 6/5/2024 titled as Kulwinder Singh @ Taina Vs. State of Punjab and Others and Jassa Singh @ Jassa Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 522 and submits that Division Bench of this Court has already considered the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1962 and has concluded that involvement of the convict in other cases cannot be a sole ground for denying him the concession of temporary release. Learned counsel further submits that case of the petitioner satisfies the ground contained in Sec. 03 of the Act of 1962. Relevant paragraph of judgment Kulwinder Singh @ Taina (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole, by referring to the status report and submits that petitioner is involved in 17 more cases. As such, he is not entitled to the relief claimed. However, he could not controvert the fact that out of those 17 cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in 08 cases and in other cases, he has undergone his sentence, except in one case.