Through this constitutional petition filed in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, following prayer has been made: "... In the light of above mentioned fads and circumstances, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that by allowing this writ petition, the Respondent No. 1 & 2 may kindly be directed to constitute a committee immediately as per law for the decision of release of the petitioner on parole and should decide the said application (Annexure-C) in the light of policy and practice applied to Rehmat Shah Afridi and Sheikh Naseeb cases and also on the consideration of principles set by this Hon 'ble Court in cases attached with this Writ Petition in the larger interest of justice, equity and fair play .
It is further prayed that a direction may kindly he issued to the respondent to act in accordance with law to meet the ends of justice.
Any other relief which this Hon 'ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be granted "
2. At the very outset, if has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted under Section 302(b)/34, PPC for life imprisonment and also convicted under Section 392, PPC for ten years R.I. vide judgment dated 24.03.20 03 in case FIR No. 117/1999 dated 11.05.1999 offence under Sections 302, 394, PPC read with 7 Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 Police Station Gujjarpura Lahore. Further contends that the petitioner has molded his bad conduct to good one and got education in the Jail premises and brother of the petitioner filed an application dated 21.05 .2014 before the Respondent No. 1 for release of the petitioner on parole but they have refused for acting in accord ance with law on the plea that the prisoners undergoing heinous offences like 7 Anti-T errorism Act and also like narcotics substances offences cannot be released on parole. Further contends that the petitioner has not been convicted in Section 7 Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and only section mentioned in the FIR's, column does not mean that the petitioner has committed heinous offence under Section 7 Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and petitioner cannot be equated with the restricted heinous offences as per policy of the Government.
3. On the other hand, learned Law Officer opposed this petition and submitted that the petitioner was involved in case FIR No. 117/1999 dated 11.05.1999 under Sections 302, 392, PPC read with Section 7 Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment in offence under Section 302(b), PPC and under Section 392, PPC sentenced to ten years R.I. alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/- or six months SI in default vide judgment dated 24.03.2003.
Further contends that he was also sentenced to three years R.I under Section 7 Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 by the learned Judge Anti-T errorism Court No. III, Lahore on 01.08.2002. Adds that the petitioner is dangerous, hardened and habitual offenders and he is not eligible for release on parole under Good Conduct / Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926. Further contends that the case of the, petitioner was placed before the parole Release Scrutiny Committee Meeting for consideration of his release on parole but the same was rejected on the ground that he was involved in offence under Section 392, PPC as well as under Section 7 Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 which are not covered under the law .
4. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard and record available on file perused.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was convicted in case FIR No. 117/1999 dated 11.05.1999 offence under Sections 302, 394, PPC Police Station Gujjarpura Lahore and in case FIR No. 371/2000 dated 14.08.2000 offence under Section 6/7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 & 324, 337 F(iii), 353, 186, PPC Police Station Mughal Pura Lahore. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for his release on parole. The report and para-wise comments from the respondents side shows that the petitioner was refused for his release on parole mainly on the ground that he was involved in offence under Section 392, PPC as well as 7 Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 which are not covered under the rules. Probation and parole is granted to a prisoner under certain special circumstances and under some prevailing laws. It is subjected to certain limitations and conditions imposed by the releasing authority . Section 2 of The Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 deals with the released on probation by the competent authority . It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the same, which reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, where a person is confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment, and it appears to the [Provincial Government], from his antecedents or his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead useful and industrious life, if he is released from prison, the [Provincial Government] may by licence permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision of authority of a [servant of the state] or a secular institution or of a person or society professing the same religion as the prisoner , named in the licence and willing to take charge of him."
Bare perusal of the section ibid shows that the conditions precedent for release of a prisoner are that he was confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment and if should appear from his antecedent or conduct in the prison that he was likely to abstain from criminal activities. The petitioner was also convicted in case FIR No. 371/2000 dated 14.08.2000 offence under Section 6/7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 & Sections 324, 337-F(iii), 353, 186, PPC Police Station Mughal Pura Lahore by learned Judge Anti-T errorism Court No. III, Lahore vide judgment dated 01.08.2002 under Section 7(i) of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years with direction to pay Rs. 10,000/ as daman to the injured. Rule 214-A of the Prisons Rules deprived those "convicts of special remission or on premature release on parole if they are sentenced for espionage or anti- state activities. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced, which reads as under Rule 214-A .... No person who is convic ted for espionage or anti-State activities shall he entitled to ordinary or special remission unless other -wise directed by the Provincial, Government.
Since the petitioner is convicted in offence under Section 7(i) of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997, hence, he is not eligible for release on parole under Good Conduct Prisoners Probtional Release Act, 1926 and rules framed there under due to this involvement and conviction in offence under Section 7 Anti-T errorism Act, 1997. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Parole Release Scrutiny Committee Meeting for considering for his released on parole on 06.05.2014, 25.06.2014, 02.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 and the same was rejected on the ground that he is involved in offence under Section 7 Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 which his not covered under the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity for not releasing the petitioner on parole inviting interference by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand being patently devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.