The decision to grant or deny parole must be based on relevant evidence and material, and reasons for the decision must be recorded to ensure transparency and justice.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is the fourth Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners Temporary Release Act 1962 for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of order passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) denying parole to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 13.02.2020 in FIR No. 85 dated 16.09.2017 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal which is pending before this Hon'ble High Court and the petitioner has been in custody since the last 3 years and 22 days. The petitioner had applied for parole for a period of 8 weeks for the repair of his house and to look after his mother and the same was not recommended by the Commissioner of Police, District Ludhiana-respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that the non-recommendation was non speaking inasmuch as, there was no evidence/material forthcoming as to how peace and harmony of the local area could be disturbed upon his release and thus, the petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition before this Court and this Court vide order dated 30.11.2021 had directed the District Magistrate, Ludhiana-respondent No. 2 to take the final decision with respect to the application of the petitioner for the temporary release on parole within a period of 15 days from the receipt of certified copy of the said order and after taking into consideration, the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Neeraj Masih Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 15.10.2020 in CRM- M-7096-2020. It is argued that thereafter, respondent No. 3- Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana had passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 in which also it had been stated that since the petitioner had been convicted in a case where commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered, there was a chance that the petitioner could attempt to sell narcotic substance while on parole and the recommendation for the parole release of the petitioner had not been made by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana on the ground that since the petitioner could make an attempt to sell narcotic substance while on parole, thus, the petitioner could be a threat to the local peace and harmony. It is further argued that the impugned order is again based on surmises and conjectures without there being any material on record and only on the basis of the subjective opinion of the authorities. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Neeraj Masih (supra) and on the basis of the same, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as the matter deserves to be reconsidered by respondent No. 2.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition and has submitted that since the petitioner was involved in a case under the NDPS Act and recovery effected was of commercial quantity, thus, the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana has not recommended the release of the petitioner on parole as there is a possibility that the petitioner might attempt to sell narcotic substances.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act i.e. FIR No. 98 dated 04.09.2015 in which the trial is pending.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paperbook.

6. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Neeraj Masih's case (supra) held as under:-

'I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

Once, the authorities have been given a power to determine the grant of parole, the same determination has to be exercised on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The reasons, which are to be given by the authorities for d