139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.05.2025 Raj Kumar alias Raju ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondents for grant of parole for a period of 08 weeks to the petitioner and for quashing the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 2, vide which, the case of the petitioner for grant of parole has been declined.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in case bearing FIR No. 247 dated 12.10.2022 at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Petitioner filed criminal appeal bearing No. CRA-S- 4120 of 2024 against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence which stands admitted vide order dated 18.12.2024.(Annexure P-1). Afterwards, petitioner applied for eight weeks parole to District Magistrate, Bathinda (Respondent no.2) to meet his wife as she is suffering from various ailments including diabetets etc. Subsequently, District Magistrate, Bathinda forwarded his case to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda (Respondent no.3) who did not make recommendation of parole to petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Bathinda rejected the application seeking eight weeks parole vide order dated 09.04.2025, Annexure P-2 by stating that petitioner is involved in four other cases, therefore he has a strong history of indulging in narcotic substances and if the parole is granted to him, there is apprehension of breach of state security and maintenance of public order.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) has been passed in a mechanical manner on the ground of earlier registered cases against petitioner. He further contends that mere conviction of petitioner in multiple cases cannot be a ground to reject parole and there is no legislative mandate to reject the case of a convict for temporary release on the apprehension that in case, the petitioner is released, he can indulge in smuggling of intoxicating substances. He submits that the petitioner was granted regular bail in another case vide order dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) and during that period, the act and conduct of petitioner remained peaceful and law abiding. Learned counsel further submits that case of the petitioner is not hardcore prisoner as defined under section 2(aa) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1962’). Therefore, it is submitted that impugned order dated 09.04.2025 may kindly be set aside and petitioner may be released on parole for eight weeks by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole, by alleging that District Magistrate, Bathinda has declined application filed by petitioner seeking parole of eight weeks by passing detailed order dated 09.04.2025, based on report filed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. Apart from present case, petitioner is involved in three other FIRs registered under the provisions of NDPS Act and One FIR under Section 498A, 406, 34 of IPC. As such, he is not entitled to the relief claimed. Otherwise, he could indulge in selling narcotic drugs and can make breach of state security and maintenance of public order.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the rec