106 CRWP-11292-2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-11292-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.09.2025 MADAN CHOPRA @ MAKHAN ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Ms. Rishma Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..… RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) CRM-W-1346-2025 In the interest of justice and keeping in view the facts and circumstances, main case i.e. CRWP-11292-2023 which is already fixed for hearing on 14.10.2025 is ordered to be pre-poned and taken up on Board for today itself. Disposed of. Main Case 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 26.10.2023, Annexure P-4, passed by District Magistrate, Kapurthala, vide which, the application of the petitioner for grant of parole has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner moved an application seeking temporary release (parole) for a Puneet Sharma 2025.09.18 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 106 CRWP-11292-2023 (O&M) -2- period of 08 weeks as provided under The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1962'), which was rejected in a mechanical manner on the ground that in case the petitioner is released on parole, he may disturb peace and tranquillity and may pose risk to the security of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there is no legislative mandate to reject the case of the petitioner on this ground and further his case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CRWP-2329-2024 decided on 03.09.2024 titled as Mehtab vs. State of Haryana and submits that Division Bench of this Court has already considered the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1962 and has concluded that apprehension of disruption of public peace cannot be a sole ground for denying him the concession of temporary release. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State and justifies the order passed by respondent No.2. 5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Mehtab vs. State of Haryana (supra), the impugned order dated 26.10.2023, Annexure P-4, passed by District Magistrate, Kapurthala, is hereby set aside, being unsustainable. 6. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of 04 weeks from 18.09.2025 and after completion of 04 weeks i.e. on Puneet Sharma 2025.09.18 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 106 CRWP-11292-2023 (O&M) -3- 15.10.2025 at 5:00 pm, the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authorities. 7. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned State counsel for ensuring strict compliance. 8. Needless to add, in the event the petitioner indulges in any criminal activity after being released on parole, this order shall not be a bar to the authorities to act as per law. 9. Disposed of accordingly. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 16.09.2025 JUDGE puneet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Puneet Sharma 2025.09.18 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment