IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. 1709 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: December 17, 2010. Gurmit Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohd., D.A.G., Punjab ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents for grant of parole to the petitioner under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short the ‘Act’). Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. CRWP No.1709 of 2010 It has been stated by learned counsel for the State that release of the petitioner on parole has been rejected by the competent authority i.e. respondent No.1, vide order dated 22.03.2010, Annexure R3 by observing that in this case for release of the convict on parole, report of the District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police was called and it was found that the petitioner was a smuggler of poppy husk; he can deal in poppy husk on parole and he can go to foreign country through travel agents. Non Government organizations are also having objection on his parole. There is apprehension of breach of peace in the village. Hence, parole was not recommended to convict Gurmit Singh S/o Darbara Singh. Therefore, the application of the convict for parole was rejected. Parole can be declined to petitioner-convict on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under: 6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary or where prisoners are not to be released.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4.- (i) it shall not be necessary to consult the District Magistrate where the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner maintained good conduct during the period of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid sections; and (ii) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order.” Perusal of aforementioned provision shows that parole can be refused if release of a convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or 2 CRWP No.1709 of 2010 maintenance of public order. In the present case, there is apprehension of breach of peace in the village. Release of petitioner on parole has not been recommended by Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, which is mandatory as per law. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the competent authority by declining parole to the petitioner. The present petition is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 17, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3