CRWP-4559 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 272 Jaswinder Singh State of Punjab and others Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P vide which request of the petitioner for grant of 8 weeks parole to him has been declined and further for issuance petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks. 2. Learned prosecuted in case FIR No. 15/25/29/60/61/85 of District Fatehabad sentenced for 1 judgment of conviction and order of sentence da learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani of his conviction and sentence by way of filing CRA -2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jaswinder Singh Versus Punjab and others Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Tushaar Madaan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG, Punjab. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for .04.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Magistrate, vide which request of the petitioner for grant of 8 weeks parole to him has been and further for issuance of directions to the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner prosecuted in case FIR No.122 dated 18.07.2006, 15/25/29/60/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station District Fatehabad. After completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for 14 years rigorous imprisonment judgment of conviction and order of sentence da Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. The petitioner assailed the order of his conviction and sentence by way of filing CRA - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-4559-2025 Date of decision:04.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Tushaar Madaan, Advocate, is for quashing of the impugned order 4) passed by the District Magistrate, Patiala vide which request of the petitioner for grant of 8 weeks parole to him has been ons to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks. submits that the petitioner was 18.07.2006, registered under Sections the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Bawani Khera, . After completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.2009 passed by the . The petitioner assailed the order of his conviction and sentence by way of filing CRA-D-692-DB-2009, which ...Petitioner ...Respondents order Patiala, vide which request of the petitioner for grant of 8 weeks parole to him has been respondents to release the submits that the petitioner was registered under Sections Bawani Khera, . After completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and vide passed by the . The petitioner assailed the order , which VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.15 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4559 was dismissed by this Court respondent no.4 had recommended the grant of eight weeks parole to the petitioner to meet his family members on 09.01.2025 and the same was duly forwarded to respondent no.3. It is further submitted that brother petitioner has also given an affidavit petitioner would be residing with him during submits that the Panchayat of village Kaler Bhaini, Block Patran, District Patiala has also supported the case of the petitioner for releasing him on par vide Annexure P petitioner had already undergone about 12 years of sentence and, thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent wrongly declined prayer o totally flimsy grounds. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent settled and, thus, submits that the impugne 3. Learned State counsel habitual offender as he is involved in various other FIRs in case of release on parole. 4. On hearing learned counsel for deciphered that the petitioner has already undergone about 12 years sentence. Brother of the petitioner has given an affidavit (Annexure P petitioner would Panchayat of village supported case of the petitioner vide Annexure P -2025 was dismissed by this Court vide order date no.4 had recommended the grant of eight weeks parole to the petitioner to meet his family members on 09.01.2025 and the same was duly forwarded to respondent no.3. It is further submitted that brother petitioner has also given an affidavit (Annexure P petitioner would be residing with him during submits that the Panchayat of village Kaler Bhaini, Block Patran, District Patiala has also supported the case of the petitioner for releasing him on par vide Annexure P-2. It is submitted that out of the awarded sentence, the petitioner had already undergone about 12 years of sentence and, thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent wrongly declined prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole on the basis of totally flimsy grounds. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities is unsustainable in the eyes of law in view of the law settled and, thus, submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. earned State counsel, per contra, habitual offender as he is involved in various other FIRs in case of release on parole. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is eciphered that out of the awarded sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone about 12 years sentence. Brother of the petitioner has given an affidavit (Annexure P petitioner would reside with him in case of release on parole. Further, Gram Panchayat of village Kaler Bhaini, Block Patran, District Patiala has also supported case of the petitioner vide Annexure P - 2 - ed 03.12.2012. It is submitted that no.4 had recommended the grant of eight weeks parole to the petitioner to meet his family members on 09.01.2025 and the same was duly forwarded to respondent no.3. It is further submitted that brother-in-law of the (Annexure P-1) to the effect that the petitioner would be residing with him during the parole period. He further submits that the Panchayat of village Kaler Bhaini, Block Patran, District Patiala has also supported the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole 2. It is submitted that out of the awarded sentence, the petitioner had already undergone about 12 years of sentence and, thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent-authorities have f the petitioner for grant of parole on the basis of totally flimsy grounds. He further submits that the impugned order passed by authorities is unsustainable in the eyes of law in view of the law d order deserves to be set aside. submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in various other FIRs and he can also escape the parties and perusing the record, it is out of the awarded sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone about 12 years sentence. Brother-in-law of the petitioner has given an affidavit (Annexure P-1) to the effect that the reside with him in case of release on parole. Further, Gram Kaler Bhaini, Block Patran, District Patiala has also supported case of the petitioner vide Annexure P-2. As per the law settled, the 2. It is submitted that no.4 had recommended the grant of eight weeks parole to the petitioner to meet his family members on 09.01.2025 and the same was duly law of the to the effect that the He further submits that the Panchayat of village Kaler Bhaini, Block Patran, District ole 2. It is submitted that out of the awarded sentence, the petitioner had already undergone about 12 years of sentence and, thus, in view authorities have f the petitioner for grant of parole on the basis of totally flimsy grounds. He further submits that the impugned order passed by authorities is unsustainable in the eyes of law in view of the law submits that the petitioner is a and he can also escape the parties and perusing the record, it is out of the awarded sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment, law to the effect that the reside with him in case of release on parole. Further, Gram Kaler Bhaini, Block Patran, District Patiala has also As per the law settled, the VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.15 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4559 provisions of parole are designed to bring the convicts in mainstream of the life. The prayer for grant of parole cannot be declined in a mechanical manner. The issue regarding apprehension of breach of peace etc. has already been dealt with by this Cou rejecting the application filed by any accused for grant of parole. has every right to meet his family members. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court opinion that parole application of the petitioner mechanical grounds like breach of peace or creation of unpleasant situation by the convict especially when this observation has been made without referring to any reliabl coming to such a conclusion. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Avdesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others on 02.06.2023, has held as under: -2025 provisions of parole are designed to bring the convicts in mainstream of the life. The prayer for grant of parole cannot be declined in a mechanical manner. The issue regarding apprehension of breach of peace etc. has already been dealt with by this Court time and again. This ground can never be justifiable for rejecting the application filed by any accused for grant of parole. has every right to meet his family members. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court opinion that parole application of the petitioner grounds like breach of peace or creation of unpleasant situation by the convict especially when this observation has been made without referring to any reliable material which the authority concerned had considered before coming to such a conclusion. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Avdesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others on 02.06.2023, has held as under:- “16. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the claim of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that in case he is released on parole, he would indulge in sale of contraband besides it would give bad effect to the young generation and there was apprehension of breach of peace. The impugned order does not refer to any material on the basis of which said satisfaction has been recorded and as is based merely on conjectures and surmises. Such a consideration is unsustainable and can be routinely pressed into action for to temporarily release a convict in terms of the provisions of the Act. Mere apprehension of the petitioner indulging in sale of contraband or of causing breach of peace would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 6(2) of the Act so as to enable the competent authority to reject the application for temporary release on parole. - 3 - provisions of parole are designed to bring the convicts in mainstream of the life. The prayer for grant of parole cannot be declined in a mechanical manner. The issue regarding apprehension of breach of peace etc. has already been dealt ground can never be justifiable for rejecting the application filed by any accused for grant of parole. The petitioner In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that parole application of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the grounds like breach of peace or creation of unpleasant situation by the convict especially when this observation has been made without referring e material which the authority concerned had considered before coming to such a conclusion. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Avdesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, in CRWP-2664-2023 decided tedly, in the case in hand, the claim of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that in case he is released on parole, he would indulge in sale of contraband besides it would give bad effect to the young generation and there was ach of peace. The impugned order does not refer to any material on the basis of which said satisfaction has been recorded and as is based merely on conjectures and surmises. Such a consideration is unsustainable and can be routinely pressed into action for defeating the statutory objective to temporarily release a convict in terms of the provisions of the Act. Mere apprehension of the petitioner indulging in sale of contraband or of causing breach of peace would not bring the n 6(2) of the Act so as to enable the competent authority to reject the application for temporary provisions of parole are designed to bring the convicts in mainstream of the life. The prayer for grant of parole cannot be declined in a mechanical manner. The issue regarding apprehension of breach of peace etc. has already been dealt ground can never be justifiable for The petitioner is of the cannot be rejected on the grounds like breach of peace or creation of unpleasant situation by the convict especially when this observation has been made without referring e material which the authority concerned had considered before coming to such a conclusion. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of 2023 decided tedly, in the case in hand, the claim of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that in case he is released on parole, he would indulge in sale of contraband besides it would give bad effect to the young generation and there was ach of peace. The impugned order does not refer to any material on the basis of which said satisfaction has been recorded and as is based merely on conjectures and surmises. Such a consideration is unsustainable and can be defeating the statutory objective to temporarily release a convict in terms of the provisions of the Act. Mere apprehension of the petitioner indulging in sale of contraband or of causing breach of peace would not bring the n 6(2) of the Act so as to enable the competent authority to reject the application for temporary VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.15 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4559 6. Thus, case on the anvil passed dated and hence, th 7. The pe weeks on h respondent-a directed to pa from the date 8. Petitio July 04, 2025 vinod* -2025 17. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for temporary release does not fall within the ambit of either of the twin grounds stipulated in Section 6 (2) of the Act besides is based on mere conjectures and surmises without there being any material to arrive on said satisfaction, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and the petitioner held entitled to concession of eight weeks parole.” keeping in view the overall fact anvil of the law settled, this Cour d 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) to he same is hereby set aside. etitioner is ordered to be relea his completing the necessary authorities, in accordance with l ass the necessary order in this re e of receipt of certified copy of th on stands allowed in the above te , 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 4 - 17. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for temporary release does not fall within the t of either of the twin grounds stipulated in Section 6 (2) of the Act besides is based on mere conjectures and surmises without there being any material to arrive on said satisfaction, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is legally tainable and is liable to be set aside and the petitioner held entitled to concession of eight weeks parole.” ts and circumstances of the prese rt does not find the impugned ord be sustainable in the eyes of la ased on parole for a period of formalities, as required by t law. The Competent Authority egard within a period of one we his order. erms. (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES YES 17. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for temporary release does not fall within the t of either of the twin grounds stipulated in Section 6 (2) of the Act besides is based on mere conjectures and surmises without there being any material to arrive on said satisfaction, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is legally tainable and is liable to be set aside and the petitioner held ent der aw 04 the y is eek VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.15 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document