1 CRWP-6384-2023 (240) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-6384-2023 (O & M) Date of decision: 27.08.2026 Deepak Kumar .... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner’s (temporary release) Act, 1962 is for the issuance of a writ, order or direction for setting aside the order dated 05.05.2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release on parole has been rejected and further directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider, decide and grant the benefit of temporary release to the petitioner by way of parole under the provisions of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner’s (temporary release), Act, 1962 for a period of 08 weeks. VISHAL SETHI 2026.08.31 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRWP-6384-2023 (240) 2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 71 dated 16.03.2019 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Derabassi, SAS Nagar came to be registered against the petitioner and on conclusion of the trial, the petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 months. 3. The convict (petitioner) preferred a Criminal Appeal No.S- 4030-2025 before this Court; the said appeal has been admitted vide order dated 23.12.2025 for hearing and is presently pending adjudication. 4. The petitioner submitted an application for the grant of 08 weeks’ parole in the office of respondent No.3-Superintendent Central Jail, District Patiala, which was forwarded to the concerned authorities i.e. respondent No.4-District Magistrate, Ambala. The District Magistrate, Ambala (respondent No.4) vide his report dated 05.05.2026 did not recommend the release of the petitioner on parole on the ground that there is a possibility of the petitioner indulging in criminal activities again, if released on parole. 5. Based on the aforementioned report, the sanctioning authority i.e. the Additional Director General of Police (Prisons), Punjab, vide letter dated 27.05.2026 sought a comprehensive report from the office of the District Magistrate, Ambala, vide Letter No.987-88 dated 12.06.2026, who further informed the Superintendent of Police, Ambala, vide letter dated VISHAL SETHI 2026.08.31 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRWP-6384-2023 (240) 03.06.2026 regarding non-sanctioning of parole to the petitioner vide order dated 05.05.2026 (Annexure P-1). 6. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ground on which parole has been denied to the petitioner is untenable. Mere apprehension of breach of peace or the likelihood of the convict committing a similar offence or absconding if granted parole without any corresponding material on record would not be sufficient to reject the prayer of the convict. In the instant case, the petitioner had been convicted and had preferred an appeal before this Court. Thereafter, his appeal had been admitted. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner absconding is completely unfounded. Reliance is placed on the judgments in ‘Narinder Singh @ Nindi versus State of Punjab and others 2020(2) DC (Narcotics) 253’ and ‘Kapil versus State of Haryana and others (CRWP-7247-2023 decided on 17.10.2023)’. 8. The learned counsel for the State while referring to the reply dated 03.08.2026 contends that the District Magistrate, Ambala has clearly not recommended the release of the petitioner on parole as the petitioner is likely to indulge in criminal activities again, if released on parole. Therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed which does not warrant any interference and the prayer of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In the present case, the application of the petitioner for the grant of parole was rejected on the ground that the release of the petitioner was VISHAL SETHI 2026.08.31 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRWP-6384-2023 (240) likely to cause breach of peace and he was likely to abscond, if granted the aforesaid concession. However, there is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the findings arrived at in the impugned order which in turn is based on the report of the District Magistrate, Ambala. Be that as it may, it is a settled position of law that even in such a situation where there is an apprehension of breach of peace, maintenance of public order or danger to the security of the State on account of the release of a convict on parole, it is the duty of the competent authority to apply its mind on the basis of inputs received by them before allowing or denying the benefit in question. As has already been mentioned hereinabove, there is no such tangible material on record for the appropriate authority to arrive at the conclusions so arrived at. 11. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of eight weeks from the date of release on furnishing of requisite personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned, who is directed to impose such conditions as may be considered necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner in jail after the parole period is over and to ensure that the temporary release is not misused by securing the bond of mandatory good conduct with a clear stipulation that in case the petitioner commits any offence during his period of temporary release, his release warrants would be cancelled as provided under the appropriate Rules. 12. 12. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the VISHAL SETHI 2026.08.31 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CRWP-6384-2023 (240) Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case the petitioner does not surrender before the Jail authorities on the expiry of his parole period i.e. eight weeks starting from the date of his release. 13. The petitioner shall furnish a telephone/mobile phone number to the Jail Superintendent on which he can be contacted, if required. After his release, he shall also furnish information of his telephone/mobile phone number to the SHO of the police station where the FIR was registered as also to the SHO of the police station in whose jurisdiction the petitioner resides. 14. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE August 27, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VISHAL SETHI 2026.08.31 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document