SATINDERJTL SINGH @ MINTU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of order dtd. 11/11/2024 (Annexing P-3) passed by District Magistrate, Ludhiana vide which application of the petitioner for parole has not been recommended and for directing the respondent-State to grant concession of parole for eight weeks and release the petitioner in FIR No.21, dtd. 22/1/1957, registered against the petitioner Linder Ss. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, Ss. 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act and Sec. 3. 4 of TADA at Police Station Division No.6. Jalandhar. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondent-State to release the petitioner on parole on his furnishing personal bond and a surety bond till the decision of the present case for pre-mature release of the petitioner.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prosecuted in HR No.2l, dated 22.01.19S7, registered under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of I PC, Ss. 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act and Sec. 3, 4 of TADA at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar. He has submitted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 19/11/2022. He has submitted that Criminal Appeal bearing No.00043 7 of 2023 is already pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He has submitted that since the date of his arrest, the petitioner is behind bars and has never been released on parole and thus, he has spent about 12 years behind bars including the under trial period. He has submitted that the petitioner filed an application for granting him parole for 08 weeks under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner's (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and amended Act, 2018, however the same was rejected by the respondent-authorities. He has submitted that being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRWP Na. 11234 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 1/10/2024 directing the respondent-authorities to pass a fresh order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. He has submitted that the respondent-authorities without application of the judicial mind and without appreciating the law settled, again dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 11,11.2024 in a stereo typed manner. He has submitted that the petitioner has been prosecuted in 06 other Fl Rs.He has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any jail offence and thus, his conduct has remained satisfactory. Even otherwise the villagers also have no objection if the petitioner is granted parole to meet his family members. However the respondent authorities on the frivolous ground that the petitioner is involved in various other eases, hence he can commit any untoward incident while on parole and thus, declined parole which is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court in 'Avdesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others", CRWP Mo. 2664 of 2023 and thus has submitted that there was nothing on the record to substantiate the ground rejecting parole of the petitioner and hence in view of the law settled, the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be directed to be released on parole for 08 weeks.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the status report filed. He has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is facing trial in 06 other cases. He has submitted that report from the Concerned authorities was received and they did not recommend the case of petitioner to be released on parole. He has thus submitted that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity and hence, the petition being devoid of any merit deserves to he dismissed.