Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 180 (PNJ)

Jasbir Singh @ Jassa Ghaint v. State of Punjab

2023-01-12

SANJIV BERRY, TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

body2023
JUDGMENT Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 3 vide which request of petitioner for temporary release to meet his minor son under Section 3 (1) (a) and (d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act of 1962') has been declined on the ground that the case of heavy recovery of 24 kg Heroin was registered against the petitioner and on coming out on parole he can again indulge in a business of drugs and can abscond. 2. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner is undergoing sentence of 20 years and fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-, and in default further rigorous imprisonment of 4 Years in case FIR No. 08 dated 27.10.2013 under Section 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act, PS State Special Operation Cell, Amritsar and the said conviction vide judgement and order dated 22.03.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Amritsar had been challenged vide appeal number CRA-D-1098-DB of 2018, which is lying admitted before this Court. 3. After issuance of notice of motion on 21.10.2022, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed their reply by way of an affidavit dated 11.12.2022, wherein it has been submitted that a case of heavy recovery of 24 kg Heroin was registered against the petitioner and on coming out on parole he can again indulge in a business of drugs and can abscond. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, the petitioner had filed CRWP No. 3874 of 2022 seeking grant of parole for 8 weeks, which was disposed of on 01.08.2022, vide Annexure-P2, directing competent authorities to consider the prayer of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. However, again the respondent competent authority has passed the impugned order (Annexure P-3), in a mechanical manner rejecting the prayer for grant of parole. 5. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, has vehemently argued that the competent authority has rejected the request of the petitioner for release on parole, considering the heavy recovery of 24 kg Heroin effected from the petitioner & co-accused and that on coming out on parole, he can again indulge in a business of drugs and can abscond. 5. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, has vehemently argued that the competent authority has rejected the request of the petitioner for release on parole, considering the heavy recovery of 24 kg Heroin effected from the petitioner & co-accused and that on coming out on parole, he can again indulge in a business of drugs and can abscond. He further submitted that in the present case, sentence of the petitioner was started w.e.f. 17.01.2021 after completion of sentence of 15 years awarded to the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 47 of 21.02.2009, titled as "Intelligence officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Amritsar v. Jasbir Singh and others", wherein petitioner alongwith other co-accused were found in possession of with 54 kgs of Heroin and 1 kg of Opium leading to their conviction and were sentenced for 15 years vide judgment dated 16.11.2010 passed by Ld. Special Court, Amritsar. 6. He further contends that in the earlier case the petitioner was granted parole for 4 times and while being on parole for 6 weeks w.e.f. 30.09.2013, he was admitted in jail on 03.11.2013 upon registration of the present case FIR No. 08 dated 27.10.2013 under Section 21/25/29 NDPS Act, Police Station S.S.O.C, Amritsar and in this manner he has misused the concession of parole and can again indulge in business of drugs. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and have also gone through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, there is no dispute as far as the factual position is concerned qua the petitioner having undergone sentence of 12 years in Complaint Case No. 47 of 21.02.2009, titled as "Intelligence officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Amritsar v. Jasbir Singh and others" vide judgment dated 16.11.2010 passed by Ld. Special Court, Amritsar and the consequent appeal filed by the petitioner i.e. CRA-D-187 DB of 2011 having been dismissed by this Court on 18.12.2009 with modification in reducing the sentence from 15 years to 12 years. The sentence awarded in the present case started w.e.f. 17.01.2021 and petitioner has undergone total of 1 year, 10 months and 26 days of actual sentence as on 11.12.2022. 9. Admittedly, the applicant is not 'hardcore criminal' as per section 2 (1) (aa) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2015. 10. The sentence awarded in the present case started w.e.f. 17.01.2021 and petitioner has undergone total of 1 year, 10 months and 26 days of actual sentence as on 11.12.2022. 9. Admittedly, the applicant is not 'hardcore criminal' as per section 2 (1) (aa) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2015. 10. The competent authority has rejected the request of parole vide the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 on the ground that this is a case of heavy recovery of 24 kgs of Heroin and the convict on coming out on parole can again indulge in a business of drugs and can abscond. Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed this observations of the competent authority to be mechanical in nature. 11. The factual position as it emerges is that the petitioner and coconvict is undergoing sentence in present case pertaining to heavy recovery of 24 kgs of Heroin from them and the petitioner had earlier also been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years under Section 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, and 60 of the NDPS Act, 1985 having been found to be in possession of 54 kgs of Heroin and 1 kg of opium. It is also worth mentioning that the petitioner was granted concession of 6 weeks parole w.e.f. 30.09.2013, in the previous case and during this period he was arrested and admitted in jail on 03.11.2013 upon registration of the present case, wherein from the petitioner and co-convict huge quantity of narcotics i.e 24 kgs. of Heroin was recovered, and ultimately he has been convicted. The recovery of narcotics from the petitioner had been heavy in nature viz. 54 kgs Heroin in earlier case and 24 kgs in the present case, indicates the petitioner being indulging in the business of drugs at a large scale, therefore, the apprehension reflected by the competent authority in the impugned order cannot be said to be mechanical or without any basis. Furthermore, the petitioner has misused the concession of parole granted to him in the earlier case as during the concurrence of the parole period w.e.f. 30.09.2013 he was apprehended by the police and huge quantity of heroin i.e 24 kgs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and convict. 12. Furthermore, the petitioner has misused the concession of parole granted to him in the earlier case as during the concurrence of the parole period w.e.f. 30.09.2013 he was apprehended by the police and huge quantity of heroin i.e 24 kgs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and convict. 12. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-3), and accordingly the present petition is dismissed.