Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It was also found from the History Ticket of the applicant accused that the applicant was released on parole in a most casual manner on flimsy grounds by the I.G. Prison as if the parole application is of an accused involved in some minor offence under the Indian Penal Code and/or other statutes. Therefore, this Court passed following order on 18/2/2008 directing the learned APP to explain [i] as to how despite bar under Section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, the applicant came to be released on parole and the said parole came to be extended and [2] how when the appeal is admitted by this Court, I.G. Prison could have exercised powers releasing the applicant on parole, in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act:

8. It also appears from the History Ticket that subsequently also the applicant had submitted various applications through jail for releasing him on temporary bail on one ground or other and all those applications either came to be dismissed and/or withdrawn. Looking to the above, the History Ticket and the grounds for which the applicant came to be released by the I.G. Prison on parole, it appears that the applications of the applicant for parole have been considered by the authority very lightly and in casual manner, as if the authority was considering the applications for parole of an accused who has been convicted for the minor offences under the Indian Penal Code, and/or other statutes, without appreciating and/or realising the fact that the applicant has been convicted for the serious offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act.

10. Now considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dadu alias Tulsidas (supra), it is true and it cannot be disputed that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court notwithstanding provisions of Section 32-A of the NDPS Act, a convict is entitled to parole. Thus, the bar under Section 32-A of the NDPS Act would not come in the way of the authority in considering the application for parole of a convict who has been convicted under the NDPS Act and the authority has jurisdiction and/or discretion to consider such applications. However, the question is whether how and in what manner such discretion is to be exercised by the authority while considering the application for parole of an accused who has been convicted for serious offence under the NDPS Act. Even while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 32-A of the NDPS Act in part, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 has observed as under:

12. In para 28 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Sureme Court has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Samujh , wherein it is held that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by Section 37 of the Act and the bail can be granted and sentence suspended in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence for which he is convicted and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and during the period of suspension of the sentence. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the mandatory condition are provided in Section 37 while releasing the accused of the offence under NDPS Act, to check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market. Thus, while considering the application for parole of an accused who has been convicted for the offence under the NDPS Act and while exercising the discretion, the authority is required to act with a great care and caution and is also required to consider the distinction of the convict under the NDPS Act and under other statutes. While considering the application for parole of an accused who has been convicted for the offence under the NDPS Act, the authority is also required to consider the seriousness of the offence and the purpose for which NDPS Act has been enacted more particularly Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The authority is also required to consider that even while considering bail application and the application for suspension of the sentence of an accused who has been convicted for the offence under the NDPS Act, even jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, application for parole of an accused who has been convicted for the offence under the NDPS Act, cannot be considered by the authority so lightly and unless there are special reasons and/or urgency such as sudden death and/or serious illness of the absolute near relative like mother, father, wife, children etc, such accused is not required to be released on parole.