Parole cannot be denied based on mere likelihood of committing a crime, and there must be material to support the apprehension of danger to public peace. Reasons falling within the ambit of 'sufficient cause' under the 1962 Act justify the release on parole.

JUDGMENT

Suvir Sehgal. J. (Oral) - The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of impugned order dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) and for directing the respondents to grant parole to the petitioner-Jeet Singh, to meet his old parents and for repairing his house.

2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was convicted for ten years on 01.08.2018 in FIR No.32 under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and is in custody for the last more than one year since his conviction. He has not committed any jail offence during his custody. His parents are very old and there is no one in the family to look after them and the condition of his house is also bad and the same is in need of repair. A Municipal Councilor had verified these facts and recommended his release on parole, vide Annexure P-l. The case of the petitioner was recommended for parole by the Superintendent, New District Jail, Nabha but the District Magistrate, Sangrur, vide impugned order dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) denied parole of the petitioner.

3. Upon notice, replies have been filed by the respondents wherein it has been submitted that as the petitioner is involved in three other cases and he is habitual in selling the drugs and in case, he is released on parole then possibility of his indulging in sale of narcotic substances cannot be ruled out. It has been further submitted that on the basis of custody certificate (Annexure R-l) that the petitioner has already undergone more than 03 years and 01 month, out of which 01 year 01 month and 10 days is after conviction and he has never been released on parole.

4. In support of his averments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jassa Singh @ Jassa Vs. State of Punjab 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 522 as well as judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.19340 of 2019 titled as Manjit Singh @ Laddu Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 02.09.2019 and has submitted that mere likelihood of indulging in trade of drugs would not be a sufficient ground to decline temporary release on parole as mere apprehension cannot be considered as threat to the security of the State or maintenance of public order.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that there are three criminal cases registered against the petitioner and the possibility that he will again engage in selling contraband, cannot be ruled out in case he is released on parole.

6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Perusal of the impugned order shows that District Magistrate denied the parole to the petitioner solely on the ground that three cases are registered against the petitioner and on the basis of apprehension that if he comes out on parole then he will surely engage in selling drugs and spoil the life of many young people, which will create law and order problem.

7. The temporary release of prisoner for good conduct is governed by the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary) Release Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "1962 Act"). The only embargo upon the release of the prisoner is laid down in Section 6 of the 1962 Act, which is reproduced 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 Governmentor 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".

8. Section 6 of 1962 Act, came up for consideration