Criminal Misc. No.M-34010 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-34010 of 2008 Date of decision : 23.12.2008 Rajinder Kumar @ Pindri ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rajinder Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State. The petitioner had earlier filed a parole plea (Criminal Misc. No. 9986 of 2008) which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sham Sunder, J.) by issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for release on parole to be able to attend the marriage of his sister on 27.4.2008. However, the petitioner could not be released on account of inability on his part to complete the formalities connected therewith. It was thereafter that the petitioner applied for his release on parole to able to meet his ailing wife and small kids aged 9 years and 2-12/ years. That plea came to be rejected by the competent authority by observing that he is involved in number of cases i.e. 1. Case FIR No. 72 of 2003 U/S 61/1/14 Excise Act. 2. Case FIR No. 34 of 2003 U/S 61/1/14 Excise Act. 3. Case FIR No. 173 of 2003 U/S 61/1/14 Excise Act. Criminal Misc. No.M-34010 of 2008 -2- **** 4. Case FIR No. 110 of 2006 U/S 21/61/85 NDPS Act 5. Case FIR No. 9 of 2005 U/S 21/61/85 NDPS Act. The further averment that the petitioner is a Mafia dealer of contraband and liquor, that he has no source of income, that he is a man of bad character and that he can abscond, if released on parole. In the context of the above averment, the petitioner has indicated that he has already been acquitted in case Case FIR No. 9 of 2005 U/S 21/61/85 NDPS Act on 13.8.2008 and that cases FIR No. 72 of 2003 U/S 61/1/14 Excise Act and FIR No. 173 of 2003 U/S 61/1/14 Excise Act are not registered against him at all. Though the grant of parole is not a right vested in a prisoner, it also cannot be said that a parole plea can be declined on the basis of a vague apprehension indicated by the competent authority. The principle of transparency validates the view that the authority competent to consider the request of a prisoner under incarceration must announce to the applicant the reasons for disallowance thereof. The impugned order deserves invalidation as it fails the test of being self-contained and transparent. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order is set aside. The competent authority is directed to pass an order afresh within fifteen days from today in the light of the above observations made by this Court. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 23, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Criminal Misc. No.M-34010 of 2008 -3- ****