IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P.No.2034 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 12, 2010 Amolak Singh alias Teetu .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Ms. Bhupinder Pal Kaur Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted by the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar in case FIR No.221 dated 24.12.2005 registered under Sections 21/22/61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station `A' Division, Amritsar, and undergoing rigorous imprisonment for 12 years in Central Jail, Ludhiana, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to release him on parole for four weeks to enable him to meet his family members, as per the provisions contained in Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. In the petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner had submitted an application to the jail authorities for grant of parole for four weeks for the aforesaid purpose. Along with the application, the petitioner had also submitted a Panchayatnama from the Councillor, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and other respectables of the area, which Crl.W.P.No.2034 of 2010 -2- recommended the parole case of the petitioner by certifying that earlier the petitioner was released on parole on the ground of illness of his wife and had surrendered before the jail authorities without delay. It is further the case of the petitioner that his parole case was duly recommended and was sent to the Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab, Chandigarh as well as to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate in turn sent the parole case of the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, who, after getting the verification done through the local police, did not recommend the parole case of the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. In the impugned order, it has been specifically stated that after verification, the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police have reported that the petitioner is involved in many smuggling cases and in case he is released on parole on the aforesaid ground, there is strong possibility that he may indulge in smuggling on large scale. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the aforesaid averments in the impugned order. In view of that, we do not find any illegality or unreasonableness in the order of the authority declining the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole on the aforesaid ground. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 12, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE