JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on eight weeks parole to meet his family members under Section 3(1) (d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner prayed for release on parole for a period of eight weeks, but same has been declined by noticing the report of Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has already been convicted in several cases, while others are still under trial. Also recorded that in most of the cases, offences are under Arms Act, NDPS Act, and there are various assault charges also. Lastly, it has been concluded that in case, petitioner is released on parole, he may abscond to foreign country.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that undoubtedly petitioner is an accused/convict in several cases, but most of the cases are still pending in which he has been falsely involved. He further submits that in five of the cases petitioner has already been acquitted and in all other cases, which are pending, almost in all such cases, he has been ordered to be released on bail. By referring to the details of the criminal cases mentioned against the petitioner in reply filed by the respondents, Counsel handed over a chart alongwith the status of the cases and same is taken on record, thus, prays for release of the petitioner on temporary parole and quashing of the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, Punjab for releasing the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the details of the pending cases clearly show that he is not an ordinary convict, being involved in about 22/23 cases. Further submits that undisputedly in five cases, he has been acquitted, but there are other cases also, where the trial is pending and in one of the case, he has been convicted and sentenced for a period of seven years. Thus, by defending the impugned order, opposes the prayer for release on parole.

5. I have considered the submissions and the details of all the cases alongwith their status, reproduced herein in tabulated form:

COMPARATIVE CHART