JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.

This is a petition for grant of parole.

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 30 years under Section 376D IPC and 2 years under Section 506 IPC vide judgment and order dated 27/31.08.2018, in case FIR No.411 dated 18.11.2017 Police Station Sector-36, Chandigarh. The appeal against conviction (CRA-877-DB-2018) of the petitioner is pending in the High Court.

3. The petitioner filed an application before the Authorities for his release on parole, which has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 22.05.2021 passed by Inspector General of Prisons, UT, Chandigarh.

4. Vide the impugned order, the IG (Prisons) on report from the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar (UP), has rejected the request of petitioner for grant of parole with the following observations:

"... The said application of Irfan s/o Ramzan was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar (UP) for sending report regarding desirability of release of convict Irfan on 28 days parole. The District Magistrate, ambedkar nagar (UP) sent report vide letter No.263 dated 11.05.2021 and he did not recommend the parole of convict Irfan on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, ambedkar nagar (UP).

The District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar (UP) has not recommended the parole of convict Irfan s/o Ramzan on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar nagar (UP) who revealed in his report that convict can be absconded during his parole period and he has opposed the 28 days parole of convict Irfan s/o Ramzan.

The undersigned has gone through the provision of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 which provides that 'Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 & 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if on the report of District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that, his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order.

Keeping in mind the report of District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar (UP) and provision of the aforesaid Act, the undersigned is of the view that convict Irfan s/o Ramzan is not entitled to be released on parole."

5. Mr.Hoshiar Singh Jaswal, Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that the request of the petitioner for parole has been wrongly rejected on the ground that in case of his release he may abscond.

6. Ld. counsel has argued that the report of the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar (UP) is without any material and consequently, the impugned order passed considering the said report, is not justified. It is also contended that there is no material in the impugned order or any other report which would justify the assertion that there is apprehension of the petitioner absconding during parole period. He further submits that Temporary Release Acts envisage temporary release of convicts. Mere fact that a person is convicted for an offence does not mean that he will abscond if he is released on parole. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab 2017(2) Law Herald 1796 if the State has any apprehension that the convict will jump parole it can always impose adequate conditions including asking for heavy surety.

7. Ld. counsel further states that the petitioner has been behind bars since 24.11.2017 and it would be wholly illegal to deny him parole on the basis of unfounded apprehensions.

8.