The decision emphasized the statutory framework governing temporary release of prisoners and the limitations on authorities' discretion in denying parole.

JUDGMENT

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - Matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

2. Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 19.04.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana vide which request of the petitioner for temporary release under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short 'the 1962 Act') has been declined.

3. Reply by way of affidavit of Devinder Kumar, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (East), Ludhiana on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed. The same is taken on record and a complete copy has been furnished to counsel opposite.

4. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the case is taken up for disposal today itself.

5. Uncontroverted facts are that petitioner was arrested in FIR No.274, dated 24.11.2017 registered at Police Station Meharban, District Ludhiana under Section 18/61/85 of the NDPS Act. In the trial that ensued, petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 12 years as also to pay a fine vide judgment dated 01.10.2020 passed by the trial Court. Petitioner has filed CRA-D-372-2020 against the judgment of conviction and which is pending final adjudication before this Court.

6. At present, petitioner is confined in Central Jail, Ludhiana. On 07.11.2020, petitioner applied for eight weeks parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the 1962 Act to meet his family members and to look after household affairs. Apparently, case of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana to the District Magistrate, Ludhiana and who has rejected the prayer on the basis of following grounds as would be discernible from the impugned order itself:

"The convict-Jatinder Singh S/o Sahib Singh can do the business of selling drugs by coming on parole and there is apprehension regarding disturbance of law and order and the local police has objection of the same."

7. Counsel for the petitioner contends that temporary release on parole could have been declined in case the circumstances provided for by the provisions of Section 6(2) of the 1962 Act i.e. release of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order and not on any other ground.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that getting a report from the District Magistrate was necessary as per Scheme of the Act and since the recommendation has been made against the petitioner, the prayer for parole has been rightfully declined.

9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.

10. The provisions of the Act provide for the temporary release of prisoners for good conduct on certain conditions as enacted by the legislature of the State of Punjab. Temporary release on parole is granted on certain conditions as envisaged by the provisions of Section 3 of the Act; besides, temporary release on furlough is granted in terms of Section 4 of the Act. In terms of Section 5A of the Act, prisoners are not entitled to temporary release in certain cases, like cases where death sentence has been awarded or a prisoner is a 'hardcore prisoner'. 'Hardcore prisoner' has been defined in Section 2 (aa) of the Act as follows:-

"(aa) "hardcore prisoner" means a person confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment, who has been convicted of-

(i) an offence of rape with murder under section 376 read with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;

(ii) an offence punishable under section 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;";

11. The petitioner does not fall under the said category and therefore, is not a hardcore prisoner. Besides, Section 6 (2) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, no person is entitled to be released under the Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him