Criminal Misc. No.M-2635 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-2635 of 2008 Date of decision : 03.11.2008 Raj Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. B.P.K.Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. The parole plea raised by the petitioner-prisoner was declined by the competent authority (vide order dated 4.1.2008-Annexure P-1/A) by observing as under:- “In the light of the High Court's order the case has been re- examined and no further report has been received from the DM. It is found that the petitioner belongs to Rajasthan State and he was caught, prosecuted and sentenced in the District of Faridkot of the State of Punjab. This fact is sufficient enough to indicate and prove that the petitioner is an interstate, if not an international, narcotic smuggler. As per the record the petitioner appears to be of 25 years of age, At this age, if a citizen indulges in the interstate narcotic smuggling, he is likely to graduate to a very very dangerous smuggler. At this age it is enough to be caught once. If he is allowed to graduate he shall be a real and permanent danger Criminal Misc. No.M-2635 of 2008 -2- **** not only for the society but for the State also.” Though it is beyond the pale of controversy that a prisoner cannot claim parole as of right, it also cannot be denied that declining of parole request has to be based on sustainable reasoning. The impugned order does not stand scrutiny in the circumstances of the case. Just because the petitioner belongs to an adjoining State and was apprehended in another State where he is proved to have been found in possession of contraband, it cannot be said that he is an interstate and international narcotic smuggler. The inference drawn by the competent authority is too far fetched and unsustainable on the face of it, particularly when there is no indication that petitioner-prisoner has a criminal history or is facing prosecution on a similar charge or has been convicted for any offence of the indicated category. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the impugned order shall stand quashed. The competent authority is directed to pass an order afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court in the foregoing paras of this judgment. The exercise shall be concluded within one month from today. 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. November 03, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE