CRWP-1231-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi State of Punjab 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Ms. for the petitioner. Mr. LAPITA BANERJI In this Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 26, 2024 (Annexure P release on parole, has been dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Tarn Taran. 2. T the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotro 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-1231 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi Versus State of Punjab and others The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Ms. Manveen Kahlon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Additional A.G., Punjab *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby application parole, has been dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Tarn Taran. The petitioner has been convicted under Section the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1231-2025 (O&M) …Petitioner …Respondents 20.11.2025 The date when the judgment is pronounced 01.12.2025 The date when the judgment is uploaded on 01.12.2025 Whether only operative part of the judgment pronounced or whether the full judgment Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of Not applicable DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI , Advocate, Himanshu Raj, Additional A.G., Punjab. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated December ), whereby application of the petitioner for parole, has been dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, he petitioner has been convicted under Section 21 (C) of pic Substances Act, 1985 (for short VANDANA 2025.12.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-1231-2025 ‘NDPS’) in FIR No.123 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station The petitioner is period of 12 ye 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for parole was sent to the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran vide office letter No.12552 dated September 1 Central Jail, Sri Goindwal District Magistrate, Tarn Taran to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran vide letter dated 29.09.2023 4. O Tarn Taran dated December 26, 2024 Senior Superintendent of Police, T Commissioner, case for grant of parole was rejected vide letter dated January 20, 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in urgent need of parole for repairing his house which is in dilapidated condition. 6. T the petitioner was that his c commit a crime during that with the disruption in State’s security petitioner may i and therefore the 2025 (O&M) in FIR No.123 dated 15.09.2017 under Sections 22/27 registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Ludhiana The petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years along with fine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for parole was sent to the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran vide office letter No.12552 dated September 13, 2023, by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib. The same was further forwarded by the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran vide letter dated 29.09.2023, for a verification report. On the basis of the report of the SHO dated December 26, 2024 which was Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran to Commissioner, (DC) Tarn Taran on January case for grant of parole was rejected vide letter dated January 20, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in urgent need of parole for repairing his house which is in dilapidated condition. The primary reason for rejection of the prayer the petitioner was that his conduct was dangerous and crime during his release on parole. Further with the petitioner’s release on parole there could disruption in State’s security and maintenance of public order or may indulge in the business of selling drugs or could abscond and therefore the prayer for grant of parole was rejected. under Sections 22/27-A/20 of Moti Nagar, District Ludhiana. sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for parole was sent to the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran vide , 2023, by the Superintendent, Sahib. The same was further forwarded by the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran to the Senior Superintendent of Police, for a verification report. the SHO, Police Station Jhabal, which was forwarded by the arn Taran to the Deputy on January 07, 2025, the petitioner’s case for grant of parole was rejected vide letter dated January 20, 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in urgent need of parole for repairing his house which is in a for rejection of the prayer for parole of onduct was dangerous and that he could his release on parole. Furthermore, the DC opined on parole there could be a risk of d maintenance of public order or the business of selling drugs or could abscond grant of parole was rejected. The SHO had VANDANA 2025.12.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-1231-2025 taken a stand in the report dated December 26, 2024 sent by the SHO to the Superintendent of Police that the FIR No.147 dated November 12, pending against him in FIR parole case should be declined as he may indulge in similar activity if released on par aforesaid grounds are misconceived. 7. Notice of motion was issued on February 7, 2025. Pursuant to the issuance of notice of motion, Kulwinder Singh, Superin filed on March 20, 2025. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for grant of parole was rightly rejected due to the recovery of a heavy quantity of heroin from the petitioner as the appr founded that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may indulge in the illegal activity of selling drugs thereby damaging the future of the children in the 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. When 11.11.2025 this Court noted against the petitioner under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn certificate of the petitioner. 2025 (O&M) taken a stand in the report dated December 26, 2024 sent by the SHO to the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner was lodged in jail in case FIR No.147 dated November 12, 2018 and had a previous NDPS case pending against him in FIR No.123 dated September 15, 2017 parole case should be declined as he may indulge in similar activity if released on parole. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the aforesaid grounds are misconceived. Notice of motion was issued on February 7, 2025. Pursuant to the issuance of notice of motion, a reply by way of an affidavit of Kulwinder Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib was filed on March 20, 2025. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for grant of parole was rightly rejected due to the recovery of a heavy quantity of heroin from the petitioner as the appr founded that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may indulge in the illegal activity of selling drugs thereby damaging the future of the in the society. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and ed the material on record. When the present petition came 11.11.2025 this Court noted that FIR No.147 against the petitioner under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran was not certificate of the petitioner. Therefore, the State counsel was directed to taken a stand in the report dated December 26, 2024 sent by the SHO to petitioner was lodged in jail in case 2018 and had a previous NDPS case 123 dated September 15, 2017 and his parole case should be declined as he may indulge in similar activity if It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the Notice of motion was issued on February 7, 2025. Pursuant reply by way of an affidavit of tendent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib was Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for grant of parole was rightly rejected due to the recovery of a heavy quantity of heroin from the petitioner as the apprehension was well- founded that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may indulge in the illegal activity of selling drugs thereby damaging the future of the This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and the present petition came up for hearing on IR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 registered against the petitioner under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police was not reflected in the custody Therefore, the State counsel was directed to VANDANA 2025.12.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-1231-2025 produce a copy of FIR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 hearing. 11. W second status report Superintendent, Central Jail, S status report would rev 15.09.2017 was registered against the petitioner dated 12.11.2018 present petitioner present petitioner same name of G on the basis of which parole was rejected to the petitioner has been admitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jhabal vide communication dated November 17, 2025 status report. The Superintendent 12. Upon serious error has been committed primarily due to Station House Officer, prisoners have been 13. The petitioner has prayed for parole in FIR No.123 dated 15.09.2017 whereas in column No.3 relating to previous record in the order of rejection, FIR No.123 is mentioned. However, in column No.10 recording the details of the case in which the petitioner sought parole, FIR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 has erroneously been mentioned. 2025 (O&M) oduce a copy of FIR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 When the matter came up for hearing cond status report dated 19.11.2025 was filed by Manjit Singh Tiwana, Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib. A perusal of the status report would reveal that only one was registered against the petitioner dated 12.11.2018 which was alleged to have been registered present petitioner and the primary reason of declining parole to the present petitioner was in fact registered against another prisoner by the name of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi ID No.231639. on the basis of which parole was rejected to the petitioner has been admitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jhabal vide communication dated November 17, 2025 which is a part of the second . The factum of mistaken identity Superintendent, Central Jail. Upon perusal of the second status report, it appears that a serious error has been committed primarily due to Station House Officer, Police Station Jhabal, as the prisoners have been mistaken. The petitioner has prayed for parole in FIR No.123 dated 15.09.2017 whereas in column No.3 relating to previous record in the er of rejection, FIR No.123 is mentioned. However, in column No.10 recording the details of the case in which the petitioner sought parole, FIR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 has erroneously been mentioned. Page 4 of 6 oduce a copy of FIR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 on the adjourned date of matter came up for hearing on 20.11.2025, a was filed by Manjit Singh Tiwana, ri Goindwal Sahib. A perusal of the second one FIR vide No.123 dated was registered against the petitioner. The second FIR No.147 which was alleged to have been registered against the and the primary reason of declining parole to the registered against another prisoner by the et Singh @ Gopi ID No.231639. The serious error on the basis of which parole was rejected to the petitioner has been admitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jhabal vide which is a part of the second identity was also admitted by the status report, it appears that a serious error has been committed primarily due to the negligence of the Police Station Jhabal, as the identities of two The petitioner has prayed for parole in FIR No.123 dated 15.09.2017 whereas in column No.3 relating to previous record in the er of rejection, FIR No.123 is mentioned. However, in column No.10 recording the details of the case in which the petitioner sought parole, FIR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 has erroneously been mentioned. VANDANA 2025.12.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-1231-2025 14. On the basis of the fact that the petitioner had indulged in two cases under the NDPS Act within approximately a period of one year, the authorities declined the grant of parole to the peti on the apprehension that 15. The callous attitude forwarding the report was unfortunately accepted by the SSP by rubber stamp, senior officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. order of rejection suffers from perversity and error of facts on the face of the record. 16. The Superintendent of Police put his rubber stamp on the report dated December 26, 2024 prayer without any independent application 17. The petitioner is a first committed no jail offence during the period of incarceration or during the period while he was on The petitioner mind of this Court indulge again in reasonable basis. 18. This Court for a convict to maintain his contact with the society which would facilitate his reformation and transform him into a responsible citizen at the time of his release, after completion of his sentence. The 2025 (O&M) On the basis of the fact that the petitioner had indulged in two cases under the NDPS Act within approximately a period of one year, the authorities declined the grant of parole to the peti on the apprehension that he may indulge in similar activity if released. The callous attitude and negligent conduct of the SHO in forwarding the report was unfortunately accepted by the SSP by , without any application of mind that senior officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. rejection suffers from perversity and error of facts on the face of The Superintendent of Police put his rubber stamp on the report dated December 26, 2024 recommending rejection of petitioner’s without any independent application of mind The petitioner is a first-time offender. committed no jail offence during the period of incarceration or during the while he was on bail from February 14, 2019 till May 01, 2023 he petitioner did not misuse the concession mind of this Court, the apprehension that the petitioner may abscond or indulge again in peddling of drugs is unfounded and without any reasonable basis. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that it is necessary for a convict to maintain his contact with the society which would facilitate his reformation and transform him into a responsible citizen at the time of his release, after completion of his sentence. The On the basis of the fact that the petitioner had allegedly indulged in two cases under the NDPS Act within approximately a period of one year, the authorities declined the grant of parole to the petitioner he may indulge in similar activity if released. and negligent conduct of the SHO in forwarding the report was unfortunately accepted by the SSP by putting a ithout any application of mind that is expected from a senior officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. The impugned rejection suffers from perversity and error of facts on the face of The Superintendent of Police put his rubber stamp on the recommending rejection of petitioner’s of mind. time offender. The petitioner has committed no jail offence during the period of incarceration or during the bail from February 14, 2019 till May 01, 2023. concession of bail. Therefore, to the the apprehension that the petitioner may abscond or ddling of drugs is unfounded and without any cannot lose sight of the fact that it is necessary for a convict to maintain his contact with the society which would facilitate his reformation and transform him into a responsible citizen at the time of his release, after completion of his sentence. Therefore, the VANDANA 2025.12.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-1231-2025 impugned order dated December 26, 2024 (Annexure P case of the petitioner for release on parole is unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. 19. In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of six weeks subject to the furnishing of a necessary surety bond to the satisfaction of the competent authority and on expiry of 6 weeks he shall surrender to the jail concerned. 20. The petiti are quantified at Rs.10,000/ Station Jhabal dated December 26, 202 to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE December 01 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) impugned order dated December 26, 2024 (Annexure P case of the petitioner for release on parole is unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside and that the petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of six weeks subject to the furnishing of a necessary surety bond to the satisfaction of the competent authority and on expiry of 6 weeks he shall surrender to the jail concerned. The petition is allowed in the above terms with costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be borne equally by the Station Jhabal and the SSP, Tarn Taran who passed the impugned order dated December 26, 2024 rejecting the petitioner’s parole to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI JUDGE JUDGE 01, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No impugned order dated December 26, 2024 (Annexure P-4), rejecting the case of the petitioner for release on parole is unsustainable and deserves In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside and that the petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of six weeks subject to the furnishing of a necessary surety bond to the satisfaction of the competent authority and on expiry of 6 weeks he shall e above terms with costs which o be borne equally by the SHO, Police who passed the impugned order jecting the petitioner’s parole. The costs has to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.12.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document