JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 vide which request of petitioner for temporary release to meet his family under Section 3 (l)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act of 1962') has been declined on the ground that there is apprehension of breach of peace in the event of the release of the petitioner on parole and that he can indulge in activities of selling drugs.

2. A perusal of the paper book reveal that the petitioner is undergoing sentence of 12 years in case FIR No. 274 dated 24.11.2017 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Meharban, District Ludhiana and the said conviction had been challenged vide appeal number CRA-D-372-DB of 2020, which is lying pending before this Court.

3. After issuance of notice of motion on 21.10.2022, respondents No. 1 to 4 filed their reply way of an affidavit dated 07.12.2022, wherein it was submitted that there is adequate apprehension of public peace and State security or that he will implement a big deal of sale of narcotics.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that petitioner was granted parole for 8 weeks by this Court vide CRWP 5988 of 2021 on 09.08.2011 and the petitioner has not misused the same and surrendered back in jail in time. She further contends that no complaint is registered against him and the non-grant of parole to the petitioner is not just a punishment to him but to his family as well.

5. Learned counsel contends that parole cannot be refused on the ground that there was apprehension of breach of peace and it is the duty of police and the District Magistrate to give protection to the people.

6. However, learned State counsel submits that a prisoner cannot claim parole as a matter of right as it is the only concession given to the prisoner for his good conduct and that too on certain conditions.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and have also gone through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and others , 2017 (15) SCC 55 while dealing with the issue of provisions of parole and furlough, has held that a humanistic approach is to be adopted against those who are lodged in jails. It has been held therein that furlough is a brief release from the prison which is conditional and is given in case of long term imprisonment which is granted as a good conduct remission. His release from jail for short period has to be considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family problems but also to maintain his links with society and the convicts too mush breathe fresh air for at least some times provided, they maintain good conduct consistently, during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves to become good citizens. Thus, the redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for good of society must receive due weightage while they are undergoing sentence of imprisonment. Hon'ble Apex Court has further clarified that the provisions of parole and furlough thus provide for humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Even citizens of the country have a vested interest in preparing offenders for successful re-entry into the society after their release. Those who leave prisons without a strong network of support, employment prospects, fundamental knowledge of the community to which they will return and without resources stand a significantly higher chance of failure. Furlough or parole can help the offenders prepare f