The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of parole should be based on solid reasons and material, and not on surmises and conjectures. The court emphasized the right to family association and the reformative nature of parole.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Prayer in the present Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner's (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the petitioner for a period of eight weeks to meet his family members and look after them.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was convicted in FIR No.9 dated 21.01.2018, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala, vide judgment and order of sentence dated 22.09.2021 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and against the said judgment, an appeal has been filed before this Court, which has been admitted and the petitioner has been in custody since the more than last 1 year and 10 months. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for parole and his case was forwarded to respondent No.2 and the same was rejected, vide impugned order dated 04.07.2022. It is argued that the impugned order dated 04.07.2022 was passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures, inasmuch as, in the said order, it had been stated that in case the petitioner is released on parole, then, he might maintain contact with drugs smugglers and also sell intoxicant substances and could also commit any crime. It is stated that there is no tangible material relied upon to come to the said conclusion. It is further stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, except the present case, regarding which an appeal is pending. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case titled as 'Jugraj Singh @ Bhola Vs. State of Punjab and others', reported as 2010(25) R.C.R. (Criminal) 138 as well as judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 'Jeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported as 2020(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 516.

3. Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the present petition and has submitted that since the petitioner has been convicted under the NDPS Act, thus, the authorities found that there is every possibility that he may contact drug smugglers and sell intoxicant substances and has thus, stated that the impugned order has been rightly passed.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the paper-book.

5. The petitioner has been in custody since the last 1 year and 10 months and 5 days. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has two minor children and the petitioner has moved the application for grant of parole for meeting his family members and looking after them, which as per para 7 of the petition, includes his two minor children.

6. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Jugraj Singh @ Bhola case (supra), has held as under: -

"It is also conceded position that the petitioner can be temporarily released on parole for four weeks under Clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to enable him to meet his family members. In our opinion, the release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined to him. In the instant case, no such strong material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for four weeks to meet his family members.'

A perusal of the above-said judgment would show that it has been observed that a convict ca