AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARMEET SINGH DEOL, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| 91 | 19.07.2021 | Shambu, District Patiala | 21/22/61/85 of NDPS Act |
Seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to release the petitioner for 4 weeks on account of ‘any other sufficient cause’ namely to attend his personal affairs for his rehabilitation and reintegration into society and also to get his medical treatment done in view of representation dated 30.03.2026 under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release Act) 1962, the petitioner who has been convicted in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be contended and satisfied if directions are issued to decide the representation dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) within the time bound manner.
Petitioner’s counsel submits that petitioner has filed an appeal against conviction before this Court bearing number CRA-D-597-2024, which is pending before this Court.
Counsel for the State makes reference to the short reply dated 12.08.2026. It would be appropriate to refer to paras 4 to 6 of the said reply, which reads as follows:-
“4.That it is most respectfully submitted for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court that the petitioner duly submitted an application seeking temporary release on parole for a period of eight weeks. In pursuance thereof, the parole case was processed by office of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, and forwarded to the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide letter No. 2047 dated 30.07.2026, under the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Apart from this, the office of deponent sent reminder letter No. 4034 dated 24.04.2026 and letter No. 6878 dated 30.07.2026 to the District Magistrate Ludhiana for considering the 08 weeks parole case of the petitioner which is still pending with the office of District Magistrate, Ludhiana.
5.That it is relevant to mention here that as per Punjab Government Notification dated 26.11.2014, the authority to grant the release of prisoners on parole under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act. 1962 has been vested in the concerned District Magistrate, the relevant extract of Notification is reproduced here under:-
"In supersession of Government of Punjab, Department of Home (Jails), Notification no 32/P.A11/62/S.3/85 dated 21 May 1985 and in exercise of powers conferred by sub sec. 4 of section 3 of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 the Governor of Punjab is pleased to authorize the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district in the State of Punjab to exercise the powers of the State government under the aforesaid section in respect of the grounds specified in clause (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of the aforesaid section.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 the Governor of Punjab is pleased to authorize the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district in the State of Punjab to exercise the powers of the State government to release temporarily, on furlough, any prisoner subject to the conditions down in the aforesaid section.
That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has failed to implead the District Magistrate, Ludhiana as a party respondent in the memo of Parties.
6.Therefore, in the instant case, the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, is the competent authority to decide the parole application of the petitioner. The answering deponent is merely a forwarding authority according to Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962 and the Notification dated 26.11.2014 of Government of Punjab, Department of Home (Jails) Jail Branch”
A reference to para 6 of the reply clearly points out that it is District Magistrate, Ludhiana, who is the person on whose instance parole is being delayed. Perusal of memo of parties does not mention that District Magistrate, Ludhiana has been arraigned as respondent. Since the said authority is not arraigned as respondent, we cannot pass any orders.
Given above, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.