The decision to deny parole must be based on the specified grounds of danger to the security of the State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and must be made objectively and not arbitrarily.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia , J. - In the present criminal writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Deputy Commissionercum-District Magistrate, Kapurthala, whereby his case for grant of parole for a period of six weeks has been rejected under the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Resultantly, the relief for grant of parole for a period of six weeks is prayed for.

2. The reasoning as such which weighed with the District Magistrate was that there were other cases registered against the petitioner, though he had been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in FIR No.169 dated 15.10.2010 under Sections 50/61/85 of NDPS Act lodged at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, on account of the fact that there was recovery of 70 Kgs of poppy husk effected from him. Resultantly, in view the fact that there were 4 more cases of similar nature against him under the NDPS Act and the fact that the petitioner had remained proclaimed offender for long, a finding was recorded that he would do the business of sale of intoxicants, which has a bad impact on society and could be harm to the people of the State. Resultantly, while agreeing with the reports sent by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala-respondent No.3 and while exercising the powers under Section 3 (4), the parole case was rejected.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has, accordingly, argued that the rejection is on the grounds, which is alien to the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963. The same provides that the parole can be declined on the ground that the prisoner's presence being dangerous to the security of the State or prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and not that on account of the fact that number of cases were registered against the prisoner and that he may deal in intoxicants again, which were irrelevant consideration.

4. The brief background of the case is that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment after having been convicted in FIR No.169 dated 15.10.2010 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, for a period of 10 years by the Special Court, Kapurthala. His appeal CRA-S-4115-SB-2016 is pending before this Court. It is his case that he has also been convicted in FIR No.129 dated 27.06.2014 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala and his appeal CRA-S-4222-SB-2016 is also pending before this Court. He had applied for parole, vide application dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Kapurthala-respondent No.4, to meet his family and wife and children and get treatment done of his wife as she is suffering from liver ailment.

5. The said application was processed by seeking a report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala and there was no objection received by the villagers of village Latianwal, regarding the release on parole of the petitioner. A reminder was also sent to the respondent No.2 by respondent No.4 on 01.09.2017 (Annexure P-3). Resultantly, he filed CWP No.1118 of 2020, whereby directions were issued on 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-4) to decide the case for grant of parole. The same has been rejected as noticed above.

6. It has been averred that the petitioner has maintained good conduct during his period of incarceration and there is no impediment for grant of parole and reliance was placed upon the Division Bench judgment dated 26.04.2016 passed in CRWP No.1322 of 2015 Daler Singh Vs. State of Punjab' that merely if there is apprehension of the petitioner absconding is no basis for rejecting the case, even if he had indulging in smuggling activities earlier. It was held that the ground that he is likely to abscond if r