Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1632 (PNJ)

Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-11-27

KULDIP SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Kuldip Singh, J.: - Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 1.8.2014 (Annexure P1), passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, wherein parole to the present petitioner was not recommended. Consequently, the petitioner was not released on parole for four weeks. 2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in FIR No.95 dated 28.4.2008 registered at Police Station Jagraon and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs.1 lacs and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for one year. Criminal Appeal CRA- S-1285-SB of 2011 against the said judgment is pending. Previously, the petitioner had availed parole from 11.4.2012 to 12.5.2012 under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’). The Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana for the second time, initiated the regular four weeks parole, for the petitioner to meet his family. However, the District Magistrate has reported that accused/petitioner may deal in smuggling of narcotics. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said ground is not justified. Parole of four weeks is allowed to convict who maintains good conduct in jail and the conduct of the petitioner in the jail and outside the jail is satisfactory. Moreover, he had not misused his previous parole. 3. In reply, the State took the plea that following criminal cases are pending / decided against the present petitioners:- 1. In FIR No.303 dated 5.10.2007 under Section 15 of NDPS Act and Sections 471, 472, 473 IPC Police Station Jagraon the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 21.7.2011 to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further RI for one month under Section 15 of NDPS Act, RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo RI for seven days under Section 471 IPC, RI for one year six months and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo RI for fifteen days under Section 472 IPC. 2. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 25.2.2011 in FIR No.92 dated 18.11.2006 under Section 15 of NDPS Act, Police Station Sudhar to undergo RI for one year and six months and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo RI for one month. 3. 2. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 25.2.2011 in FIR No.92 dated 18.11.2006 under Section 15 of NDPS Act, Police Station Sudhar to undergo RI for one year and six months and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo RI for one month. 3. Petitioner is on bail in FIR No.137 dated 28.6.2013 under Section 52-A (1) of Prison Act, at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana since 7.11.2013. 4. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 19.9.2013 in FIR No.124 dated 28.8.2012 under Section 52-A(1) of Prison Act, registered at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. 4. It is stated that a mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused/petitioner in jail, with regard to which FIR No.124 mentioned above was registered and he was convicted and sentenced for the same. 5. Petitioner had produced Panchayatnama (Annexure P3) before respondent No.2 to initiate his request for the grant of parole for four weeks. The District Magistrate has submitted the report which says that after coming out on parole, the petitioner may get involved in smuggling of intoxicated drugs. Further the competent authority is competent to decline the parole release specifying ‘endanger to the security of the public order’. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the file. 7. The petitioner seeks four weeks parole to meet his family. It is not disputed that previously, the petitioner remained on parole from 11.4.2012 to 12.5.2012 and thereafter, surrendered in jail, showing that he had not misused his parole. So far as cases mentioned by the respondents are concerned, these pertain to the period before his release on parole in the year 2012 except two cases i.e. FIR No.137 dated 28.6.2013 under Section 52-A of the Prison Act and FIR No.124 dated 28.8.2012 under Section 52-A of the Prison Act. It is stated that mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 8. Now this Court is to examine as to whether the refusal of parole is justified? It is stated that mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 8. Now this Court is to examine as to whether the refusal of parole is justified? Section 4 of the Act provides that parole can be refused by the State on the following grounds:- “4(1) The State Government or any other officer authorized by it in this behalf may, in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily, on furlough, any prisoner who has been sentence to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years, and who- (a) has immediately before the date of his temporary release, undergone imprisonment for a period of three years, excluding remission; and (b) has not during such period committed any jail offence and has earned at least three annual good conduct remissions; Provided that nothing herein shall apply to a prisoner who- (i) Is a habitual offender as defined in clause (3) of section 2 of the Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reforms) Act, 1952, or (ii) Has been convicted of robbery or dacoity or such other offence as the State Government may, by notification, specify.” 9. The ground mentioned by the District Magistrate to refuse the grant of parole is that as per the inquiry conducted by SHO Police Station Jagraon, if the petitioner is released on parole, he may get involved in smuggling of narcotics and that if he is released on parole, there can be an increase in the smuggling of narcotic activities / substances in the society. 10. I am of the view that this is a mere apprehension of the District Magistrate. There are no allegations against the petitioner that on his previous release, the petitioner was involved in criminal activities. Though some cases under the NDPS Act have been decided against him but after his sentence in the present case, he is not alleged to be directly or indirectly involved in the smuggling of narcotics. Two cases registered against him under the Prisons Act, pertain to possession of mobile phone and are not connected with the smuggling activities. These are the allegations which are leveled against the prisoners, as in most of the cases, they want to contact their families by one or the other mode. 11. Two cases registered against him under the Prisons Act, pertain to possession of mobile phone and are not connected with the smuggling activities. These are the allegations which are leveled against the prisoners, as in most of the cases, they want to contact their families by one or the other mode. 11. Therefore, I am of the view that decline of parole on the above noted ground is not justified. Accordingly, order dated 1.8.2014 (Annexure P1), passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana is quashed. The State is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order of this Court and pass a fresh order. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————