Crl.W.P. No.1908 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.1908 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 21, 2010 Balwant Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr. M.S. Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years, has filed the instant petition for releasing him on parole for four weeks to meet his family members. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for parole for four weeks to meet his family members. The said application was forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar to the District Magistrate, Jalandhar. By the impugned order dated 2.7.2010, District Magistrate, on the basis of the report of the S.S.P., Jalandhar, rejected the parole case of the Crl.W.P. No.1908 of 2010 (O&M) -2- petitioner, after making enquiries from the respectables of the village, on the ground that the petitioner deals in the business of poppy husk and he may again do the same business in case he is released on parole. Keeping in view the report of the local police, the parole case of the petitioner was not recommended. It is the case of the petitioner that the Panchayat of Village Gonsuwal, District Jalandhar has strongly recommended the parole case of the petitioner. Further, the brother of the petitioner has also undertaken the responsibility for surrendering the petitioner in time in case the petitioner is released on parole. It has been further alleged that the petitioner has not come out of the jail for the last more than two years. However, the authorities have arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner without any valid reason or basis. On the last date of hearing, i.e., December 01, 2010, this Court directed the learned counsel for the respondents to place on record the additional affidavit after getting verification from the Panchayat, regarding the Panchayatnama (Annexure P2) annexed with the petition. Today, affidavit of Shri Surinder Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar has been filed, which is taken on record. In the said affidavit, it has been averred that the Panchayatnama submitted by the petitioner along with his application for parole has been got verified from Gram Panchayat of Village Gonsuwal, Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar and the contents of the Panchayatnama have been found to be correct. It has been further averred that Sarpanch and other members of Panchayat, who had signed the Panchayatnama, have certified that they have validly issued the Panchayatnama. Crl.W.P. No.1908 of 2010 (O&M) -3- In our opinion, on such kind of vague report, without any basis and foundation, the benefit of parole, to which a convict can avail on fulfilling certain conditions, should not be denied. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 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. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined merely on the apprehension raised by the complainant party that the release of the convict on parole will endanger their life or cause breach of peace in the village or will indulge in smuggling activites. In the instant case, no such strong material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for four weeks to meet his family members. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.7.2010 is quashed 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 December 21, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE Crl.W.P. No.1908 of 2010 (O&M) -4-