IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-31455 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 01, 2008 Harjit Singh. … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and other. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. A.S. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. Nos. 55318 & 55319 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-31455 of 2008 The petitioner – prisoner applied for his release on parole in order to be able to meet his brother who met with an accident and has been hospitalized thereafter. Under the directions of this Court, the Competent Authority verified and found the fact of hospitalization to be correct. However, the parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner was declined by the Competent Authority by noticing that the petitioner is undergoing incarceration following his conviction in a case under the NDPS Act and also in another case wherein the allegation was that he had demanded ransom amount of Rs. One crore. Notice of motion. Crl. Misc. No. M-31455 of 2008 On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. In the context of the denial of parole to a convict undergoing incarceration for an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court held in Criminal Writ No. 1157 of 2006 (Sukhwinder Singh @ Titto versus State of Punjab), decided on 10.08.2007, that a parole plea by a prisoner cannot be declined just on the basis that he is undergoing sentence in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act. Insofar as the latter part of the premise noticed by the Competent Authority is concerned, it too would not justify the outright rejection of the parole plea. It would, however, be open to the Competent Authority to insist upon the furnishing of adequate and solvent local surety to ensure that the petitioner – prisoner does not evade the law. The petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to pass an order afresh, in the light of the facts noticed above, within one month from today. The release shall, of course, be subject to the furnishing of adequate surety etc. by the petitioner – prisoner. 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 01, 2008 (S.D. Anand) vkd Judge 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-31455 of 2008 3