JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to decide the parole case of the petitioner expeditiously.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that vide judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2023 passed by learned Judge, Special Court Kapurthala, the petitioner was convicted in FIR No.85 dated 01.12.2014 under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala and vide order of sentence of even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lakhs along with default mechanism. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court, which stands admitted on 16.11.2023. It is further contended that on 06.12.2023, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of parole before the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Kapurthala (Annexure P-3), which was forwarded to respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Kapurthala vide letter dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, respondent No.2 sought report from respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala to verify the parole case of the petitioner and as per panchayatnama furnished by panchayat of village of the petitioner, they have no objection, in case the petitioner is released on parole. After that, a period of more than 01 year has lapsed since submission of application for grant of parole and till date, no decision has been taken by respondent No.2 and more than 06 months have passed since parole case of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent No.4 to the office of respondent No.2 and till date, no information with regard to status of parole case of the petitioner has been provided by the jail authorities.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the issue involved in the present case would be decided expeditiously, if the petitioner is found eligible for temporary release under Section 3 of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and further, if the petitioner has maintained good conduct during the period of his incarceration.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that office of respondent No.2 sought comments of respondent No.3 with regard to parole case of the petitioner and till date, respondent No.3 has not reverted back to respondent No.2. The punishment imposed upon a convict is for the dual purpose of being deterrent and also giving an opportunity to the convict to integrate back into the society and for the purpose of reformation and denial of parole amounts to denial of opportunity to a convict to reform himself and integrate back into the society and the brief spells of parole and furlough provides an opportunity to a convict to meet his family members and also cultivates his roots in the society. Further, the authorities cannot arbitrarily sit over the case of the petitioner for temporary release under the provisions of the Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kesar Singh Guleria Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1985, Crl LJ 1202, wherein, while referring to Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579, it has been held that the right to visit and the society of spouse, off springs, parents and other family members cannot be denied in light of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, subject to considerations of security and discipline, liberal visits by family members, close friends and legitimate callers has been declared to be a part of the prisoner's kit of rights, which must be respected and it was further held as under: -

"10. Parole and furlough, in principle and practice, are the other side of t