Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Sanjay Kumar, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner sought grant of parole for 6 weeks under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter, 'the Act of 1962). The reason for his seeking this relief was that he had to take care of his wife and minor child.

The request of the petitioner was turned down by the authorities on the strength of the report dated 18.04.2020 furnished by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, to the District Magistrate, Sangrur.

The petitioner suffered conviction under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, 'the Act of 1985), in relation to FIR No.126 dated 09.11.2018 on the file of Police Station Sadar, Sangrur, VIDE judgment dated 12.03.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and payment of fine of ` 80,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, he filed CRA-S-1113-2020 before this Court. The said appeal was admitted on 10.06.2020 and payment of the fine was stayed pending its disposal.

The petitioner is presently in custody. He moved an application on 07.04.2020 before the District Magistrate, Sangrur, the 2nd respondent herein, seeking grant of parole for 6 weeks on the ground that he had to take care of his minor child and wife. According to him, they were being supported by his father-in-law but he was also very old and had no other financial support. His plea for grant of parole was however negatived by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, VIDE report dated 18.04.2020, on the ground that he was a habitual offender, indulging in sale of drugs, and that grant of parole may result in his undertaking further sale of drugs and damaging the lives of people.

The Deputy Superintendent, Maximum Security Jail, Nabha, filed a reply in this case. Therein, he stated that the petitioner was a habitual seller of drugs and that his release on parole would enable him to undertake similar activities. The custody certificate filed along with the reply demonstrates that the petitioner has suffered 7 months 10 days of custody, in all, in relation to this case. Significantly, no other FIR was registered against him, be it under the Act of 1985 or under any other law.

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, conceded that there is no reason forthcoming as to how a bald statement was made by the police authorities that the petitioner is a habitual offender insofar as the Act of 1985 is concerned.

Further, going by the conviction and sentence suffered by the petitioner, it is clear that the said case also did not involve a commercial quantity of a prohibited narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, in terms of the Act of 1985. Therefore, the rejection of his request for parole on the ground that he is a habitual offender cannot be countenanced.

It may be noted that Section 3(1)(d) of the Act of 1962 permits grant of parole for 'any other sufficient cause' but the period of release on parole on this ground is conditioned by Section 3(2). This provision originally stated that where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in Section 3(1)(d), the maximum period of parole cannot exceed 4 weeks. This provision was however amended by the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2015, which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 07.01.2016. Thereby, the maximum period of parole relatable to the ground specified in Section 3(1)(d) of the Act of 1962 was increased to 6 weeks. In consequence, the petitioner would be entitled to 6 weeks of parole and not 4 weeks.

Unaware of the amendment made in the year 2016, the writ petition was allowed by this Court on 01.10.2020 directing the respondent authorities to grant four weeks parole to the petitioner under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act of 1962. However, as this Court was thereafter sensitized as to the legal position obtaining as on date and as the petitioner would be unnecessarily driven to seek review of the order at his own avoidable cost and inconvenience, this Court deemed it appropriate to post the case for rehearing on this aspect.

With his usual fairness, Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, states that the petitioner would be entitled to 6 weeks parole if the ground therefor is relatable to Section 3(1)(d) of the Act of 1962 and in turn, the amended provisions of Section 3(2) thereof.

The order dated 01.10.2020 passed in this writ petition directing the authorities to grant 4 weeks parole to the petitioner is accordingly recalled and substituted with the present order. However, any action taken pursuant to the earlier order dated 01.10.2020 shall stand validated and be covered by this order.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondent authorities to grant 6 weeks parole to the petitioner under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act of 1962 upon his furnishing sufficient personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, to ensure his good behaviour during the release period and for his surrender upon expiry of the parole.

No order as to costs.