Crl.W.P. No.51 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.51 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 10, 2011 Tara Ram .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Ms.Bhupinder Pal Kaur Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Grewal, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted under Sections 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for twelve years by Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar vide judgment dated 19.10.2009, has filed the instant petition for issuing directions to the respondents to release him on parole for four weeks to meet his family members and settlement of other domestic affairs under Clause (d) of sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of February, 2010, he had moved an application before the jail authorities for grant of parole for the aforesaid purpose. The said application was duly Crl.W.P. No.51 of 2011 -2- recommended by a Panchayatnama from the Gram Panchayat of his village in which it was certified that in the event of release of the petitioner on parole there is no apprehension of breach of peace. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, where the petitioner is presently undergoing the sentence, keeping in view his good behaviour in jail, forwarded the parole case of the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar for verification and report vide letter dated 24.2.2010. It has been specifically averred that since then the petitioner had been pursuing his parole case with the jail authorities, but to no avail. Thereafter the petitioner moved a petition (Crl.W.P.No.2122 of 2010) which was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioner, through his counsel, served a notice dated 26.11.2010 upon the respondents calling upon them to decide the parole case of the petitioner. It has been further alleged that the Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab, Chandigarh, while replying to the notice vide his letter dated 14.12.2010, intimated that the District Magistrate had not so far submitted his report. Faced with this situation, the petitioner has been compelled to file the instant petition for issuing directions to the respondents to release him on parole for the aforesaid purpose. This Court, while issuing notice of motion, vide order dated January 14, 2011 directed the District Magistrate, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar to file his personal affidavit on the next date, explaining the reasons for not forwarding the case of the petitioner to the competent authority even after the lapse of more than ten months. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, reply by way of affidavit of Crl.W.P. No.51 of 2011 -3- the District Magistrate, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, has been filed. In the affidavit, it has been averred that in order to verify the antecedents of the petitioner, the statements of Members Panchayat and Lambardar of village Burj Tahal Dass, to which the petitioner belongs, were recorded in which it has been testified that the petitioner was indulging in the sale of poppy husk and a case FIR No.54/03 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was registered against him in P.S. Rahon, in which he was declared proclaimed offender in the year 2004 and was arrested in the year 2007, and convicted and sentenced, as indicated above. It has been further reported that in case the petitioner is released on parole, he is likely to indulge in the sale of poppy husk and may induce the youth to use intoxicants and may abscond again. It has been further averred that on the basis of the said report of ASI Pargan Singh and the statements of the aforesaid persons, the SHO, Police Station, Rahon did not recommend the release of the petitioner on parole. It has been further reported that since the petitioner remained proclaimed offender for a sufficient long time, he is not entitled to be released on parole. In the last, it has been reported that separately departmental proceedings have already been initiated against the delinquent police officials for causing delay in deciding the application of the petitioner for his release on parole. On the other hand, in the reply filed in the form of affidavit, on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, it has been averred that till the date of filing of the affidavit, i.e., 7.2.2011, the verification report of District Magistrate, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar had not been received and as such the parole case of the petitioner is lying pending. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Crl.W.P. No.51 of 2011 -4- parties. It is undisputed position that after the conviction, the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner remained good throughout in the jail and he has not committed any jail offence. It is also conceded position that the petitioner can be temporarily released on parole for four weeks under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act to enable him to meet his family members. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. In the instant case, the temporary release of the petitioner on parole has been declined only on the ground that in the event of temporary release of the petitioner on parole, there is likelihood that he may indulge in the sale of poppy husk and may abscond again. In our opinion, on the basis of such apprehension, the release of a convict on parole cannot be denied in the absence of sufficient material to that effect. We are further of the opinion that it cannot always be inferred that if a convict earlier remained proclaimed offender in a case, he will repeat the same thing, particularly when his conduct and behaviour remained good in the jail throughout his custody period. In that case, such convict can be temporarily released by imposing a heavy surety. In Annexure R-1 annexed with the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, which is the custody certificate of the petitioner, it has been mentioned that the total actual sentence as on 25.1.2011 undergone by the petitioner is three years, six months and six days. It is pertinent to mention here that this is the first parole application Crl.W.P. No.51 of 2011 -5- moved by the petitioner in this case. Further, the whole Gram Panchayat of the village vide Panchayatnama Annexure R-2 has strongly recommended for release of the petitioner on parole. Thus, in our opinion, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be temporarily released on parole for four weeks for the aforesaid purpose, by imposing a heavy surety, and rejection of his prayer is not sustainable. Hence, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light of the observations made in this order and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 10, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE