AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the backdrop of the case law discussed above, facts of the present case may be examined. There is nothing on record to show that conduct of the
petitioner in jail has not been found good. The petitioner has never been released on parole earlier. He is involved in three other cases, out of which he
was acquitted in one case and in the remaining two cases, he was convicted and sentenced to the period already undergone and was ordered to pay
fine which he has deposited. No doubt, the other three cases in which the petitioner was involved were also under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, yet the likelihood of his involvement in similar offence while on parole is not be taken as an active and real
apprehension of threat to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order as held in Manjit Singh @ Laddu's case (supra). Moreover
the respondents have not placed on record any material to support the apprehension. Merely on the basis of an apprehension, benefit of parole cannot
be denied.