JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure P-7) whereby he has been denied the benefit of parole to meet his family and relatives. A prayer has been made that the petitioner be granted the benefit of parole under Sections 3 & 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') for a period of 08 weeks to meet his family more so as he had lost his mother who died on 24.01.2022 and it was a matter of record that his son was suffering from neurological ailments.

2. On being put to notice by this Court on 23.12.2022, learned State counsel filed reply by way of affidavit of N.D. Negi, Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Learned State counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and submitted that the petitioner who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in case FIR No.56 dated 23.01.2008 under Sections 302 /381/120B/411 of the IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar for having committed offences under Sections 396 /120B/411 of the IPC, was released on parole on 16.06.2020. He was due to surrender back on 12.08.2020, however, due to the outbreak of pandemic Covid-19, his period of parole was extended and ultimately he was directed to surrender back on 29.04.2021. The petitioner, though, surrendered back in the jail, but it was not on 29.04.2021 but on 10.05.2021, after overstaying for 12 days. Learned State counsel has, thus, opposed the prayer made for granting the benefit of parole to the petitioner by submitting that not only had the petitioner violated the conditions of the Act but on account of the aforementioned violation, he had also been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of 10 days under Section 9 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that no doubt the petitioner had overstayed by 12 days when he was granted the benefit of parole last time i.e. 16.06.2020, however, it was a matter of record that he could not surrender back on time as his son is suffering from a serious neurological ailment and he was busy with his treatment. He has further urged that it is a matter of record and not even disputed by the State, that prior to his release on parole last time, he had been extended the benefit of parole as many as 07 times, and on each and every occasion, he had surrendered back on time. Learned counsel while drawing the attention of this Court to para 10 of the reply filed by the State, has further submitted that it has not even been disputed by the State that they had verified qua the medical condition of his son and that he was indeed suffering from neurological ailment. He has submitted that no doubt, at present the medical condition of his son is stable, however, being a father, his presence would be required at home, so that he could take his ailing son for follow up with his doctors.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the reply filed by the State.

5. It has not been disputed by the learned State counsel that it was only one occasion that the petitioner after being released on parole on 16.06.2020 had overstayed and had surrendered late by only 12 days. Prior thereto, the petitioner had never misused the benefit of parole which had been given to him. It is also a matter of record that on account of the petitioner surrendering la