Meeting One's Family Most Important Facet Of Right To Life: P&H High Court Grants 8 Weeks Parole To NDPS Convict
Meeting one's family is one of the most important facets of right to life and thus, said ground for parole is legal and valid and in accordance with law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed.The observation was made while dealing with a criminal writ petition filed by a convict under the NDPS Act, seeking parole to meet his family members and to look after...
Meeting one's family is one of the most important facets of right to life and thus, said ground for parole is legal and valid and in accordance with law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed.
The observation was made while dealing with a criminal writ petition filed by a convict under the NDPS Act, seeking parole to meet his family members and to look after them.
The petitioner was convicted under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and was sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment term of 10 years. He submitted that he had been in custody for over 1 year and 10 months and that his earlier application for parole was rejected by the authorities. He further submitted that the order rejecting his parole application was passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures as the said order had stated that in case the petitioner was released on parole, then, he could maintain contact with drugs smugglers and also sell intoxicant substances and could also commit any crime. The petitioner argued that there was no tangible material on which the authorities relied upon to come to the said conclusion.
The single bench of Justice Vikas Bahl set aside the impugned order and allowed for the petitioner to be released on parole for a period of 8 weeks, noting that meeting one's family was an important facet of the right to life.
"It is not in dispute that the petitioner has two minor children and the petitioner has moved the application for grant of parole for meeting his family members and looking after them, which as per para 7 of the petition, includes his two minor children," noted the Court.
The High Court placed reliance on the decisions in Jugraj Singh @ Bhola v. State of Punjab and Others, 2010 (25) R.C.R. (Criminal) 138 and Jeet Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, 2020 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 516 and the decision in Narinder Singh @ Nindi v. State of Punjab and Others, 2020 (2) DC (Narcotics) 253 to reach its finding.
As far as the apprehensions of the authorities were concerned, the Court placed reliance on the decision in Gursahib Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, CRWP-867-2021, and held that:
"There is no specific input from any quarter to suggest that the petitioner would indulge in the crime for which he had been convicted and thus, the impugned order, having been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures, deserves to be set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of eight weeks from the date of release."
Case Title: Babbu Singh alias Tidda v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: CRWP-9403-2022
Coram: Justice Vikas Bahl
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 289