The right of personal liberty cannot be denied to a convicted prisoner, and parole is an essential element of the reformative theory of punishment.

1. - The petitioner has submitted the petition on behalf of her husband, Jeet Singh, who is undergoing a sentence of ten years having committed for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act at Central Jail, Ajmer. According to the petitioner, her husband has already completed six years, eight months and twenty-seven days of his sentence. Thus, he has completed more than one third of his sentence. Hence, he is eligible for being released on first parole of twenty days. The petitioner had applied for the same for her husband. However, the matter is still pending as the reports of the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Social Welfare Department, Ludhiana and Central Narcotics Bureau, Chittorgarh are yet to be received.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined by the omissions committed by the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Social Welfare Department, Ludhiana and Central Narcotics Bureau, Chittorgarh. Once the convicted prisoner is eligible to be released on parole, it is the duty of the concerned authority to ensure that his case is considered within a reasonable time. Despite the fact that the petitioner's husband has completed six years of his sentence, he is yet to be granted the benefit of first parole.

3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that delay is caused only as the reports of Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Social Welfare Department, Ludhiana and Central Narcotics Bureau, Chittorgarh are not received.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Merely because the prisoner is incarcerated in the Jail does, he is not denuded of his fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. Right of personal liberty may be curtailed by the fact of his incarceration, but nonetheless the convicted prisoner is entitled to have his case considered for grant of parole. Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that parole is an essential element of the reformative theory of punishment. Parole is granted in order to encourage the convicted prisoners to reform themselves to the point that they may be brought back into the mainstream of the society. The appropriate authority dealing with the grant of parole should be alive to the Constitutional mandate. They cannot sit over the case of a convicted prisoner without any rhyme or reason.

5. Such omission on their part is an arbitrary act. The said act or omission is in the violation of the constitutional requirement. In light of the above discussion, the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Social Welfare Department, Ludhiana and Central Narcotics Bureau, Chittorgarh are directed to send their report, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment, to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer is granted two weeks' time thereafter to refer the case of the petitioner's husband to the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is directed to decide the case of the petitioner's husband within a period of two weeks thereafter.

6. The Deputy Registrar (Judl.) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Social Welfare Department, Ludhiana and Central Narcotics Bureau, Chittorgarh for their compliance. The petition is, hereby, disposed off.Petition Allowed.

*******