CRWP-5464 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 108 Dilshad Malik @ Kala U.T., Chandigarh CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 11.03.2025, passed by respondent No. 2 whereby an application moved by him for gr 2. convicted in three cases under Sections 379 undergoing sentence awarded to him in Model Jail, Chandigarh. He has moved an applicatio the engagement ceremony of his sister, which is fixed for 10.06.2025, but the same has been dismissed by respondent No. 2 by passing the impugned order. The primary ground for declining the prayer m non-recommendation of his case by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh based on report made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh wherein it was reported that the petitioner was dangerous to the security of the Sta 5464-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dilshad Malik @ Kala Versus U.T., Chandigarh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 11.03.2025, passed by respondent No. 2-Inspector General of Prisons, Chandigarh, whereby an application moved by him for gr Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had been convicted in three cases under Sections 379 undergoing sentence awarded to him in Model Jail, Chandigarh. He has moved an application for grant of temporary parole for 28 days for attending the engagement ceremony of his sister, which is fixed for 10.06.2025, but the same has been dismissed by respondent No. 2 by passing the impugned order. The primary ground for declining the prayer m recommendation of his case by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh based on report made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh wherein it was reported that the petitioner was dangerous to the security of the Sta 2025 (O&M) - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-5464-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.05.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent MANISHA BATRA Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, Advocate Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 11.03.2025, Inspector General of Prisons, Chandigarh, whereby an application moved by him for grant of parole has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had been convicted in three cases under Sections 379-A and 411 of IPC and is undergoing sentence awarded to him in Model Jail, Chandigarh. He has n for grant of temporary parole for 28 days for attending the engagement ceremony of his sister, which is fixed for 10.06.2025, but the same has been dismissed by respondent No. 2 by passing the impugned order. The primary ground for declining the prayer made by the petitioner was the recommendation of his case by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh based on report made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh wherein it was reported that the petitioner was dangerous to the security of the State and -1- 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 11.03.2025, Inspector General of Prisons, Chandigarh, ant of parole has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had been A and 411 of IPC and is undergoing sentence awarded to him in Model Jail, Chandigarh. He has n for grant of temporary parole for 28 days for attending the engagement ceremony of his sister, which is fixed for 10.06.2025, but the same has been dismissed by respondent No. 2 by passing the impugned order. ade by the petitioner was the recommendation of his case by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh based on report made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh wherein it te and MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5464 prejudicial of the maintenance of the public order. However, a perusal of the impugned order would show that no reasons whatsoever have been given to support the grounds taken by the respondents. It is, thus, urged that the present petition deserves and the petitioner deserves to be granted temporary parole for the period he had applied for. 3. submitted therein and learned there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary parole has rightly been dismissed because the District Magistrate, Chandigarh had not recom petitioner on parole, which was based on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to the effect that the petitioner’s release on parole was likely to endanger the public order and the security of the State. It is, therefore, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. and have also perused the material placed on record. 5. is revealed that besides mentioning about the report by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh, which was in fact based on the information supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, no further details or reasons have been given while de to how his release on parole would endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public law and order. It is well settled that the authorities concerned, while dealing with such like mat 5464-2025 (O&M) prejudicial of the maintenance of the public order. However, a perusal of the impugned order would show that no reasons whatsoever have been given to support the grounds taken by the respondents. It is, thus, urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be granted temporary parole for the period he had applied for. Reply has been filed by the respondent submitted therein and learned Public Prosecutor, Chandigarh has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary parole has rightly been dismissed because the District Magistrate, Chandigarh had not recom petitioner on parole, which was based on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to the effect that the petitioner’s release on parole was likely to endanger the public order and the security of the State. is, therefore, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. On a careful perusal of the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 is revealed that besides mentioning about the report by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh, which was in fact based on the information supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, no further details or reasons have been given while declining the prayer made by the petitioner to how his release on parole would endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public law and order. It is well settled that the authorities concerned, while dealing with such like mat 2025 (O&M) - prejudicial of the maintenance of the public order. However, a perusal of the impugned order would show that no reasons whatsoever have been given to support the grounds taken by the respondents. It is, thus, urged that the present to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be granted temporary parole for the period he Reply has been filed by the respondent-U.T., Chandiagrh. It is Public Prosecutor, Chandigarh has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary parole has rightly been dismissed because the District Magistrate, Chandigarh had not recommended the release of the petitioner on parole, which was based on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to the effect that the petitioner’s release on parole was likely to endanger the public order and the security of the State. is, therefore, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. On a careful perusal of the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 is revealed that besides mentioning about the report by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh, which was in fact based on the information supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, no further details or reasons clining the prayer made by the petitioner-convict, as to how his release on parole would endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public law and order. It is well settled that the authorities concerned, while dealing with such like matters, cannot act in a mechanical -2- prejudicial of the maintenance of the public order. However, a perusal of the impugned order would show that no reasons whatsoever have been given to support the grounds taken by the respondents. It is, thus, urged that the present to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be granted temporary parole for the period he U.T., Chandiagrh. It is Public Prosecutor, Chandigarh has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary parole has rightly been dismissed because mended the release of the petitioner on parole, which was based on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to the effect that the petitioner’s release on parole was likely to endanger the public order and the security of the State. have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length On a careful perusal of the impugned order dated 11.03.2025, it is revealed that besides mentioning about the report by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh, which was in fact based on the information supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, no further details or reasons convict, as to how his release on parole would endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public law and order. It is well settled that the authorities ters, cannot act in a mechanical MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5464 manner without even referring to the substantive material forming basis for declining the prayer of the convicts. Reference can be made to the authority cited as Jassa Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab 522, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the parole is not liable to be denied on mere recording that prisoner on release would engage in smuggling activities causing danger to security of the country. Similar view was taken by the @ Bhola v. State of Punjab and other, 2010 (25) RCR (Criminal) 138 wherein it was observed that until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temp a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined to him. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced under : 6. State of Punjab, 2020(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 516 of this Court had held that in the absence of any material to support the apprehension, parole cannot be denied on mere likelihood of involvement in similar offence while on parole as it can not be taken as an active and real apprehension of threat to the security public order. 5464-2025 (O&M) manner without even referring to the substantive material forming basis for declining the prayer of the convicts. Reference can be made to the authority Jassa Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab , wherein a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the parole is not liable to be denied on mere recording that prisoner on release would engage in smuggling activities causing danger to security of the country. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in @ Bhola v. State of Punjab and other, 2010 (25) RCR (Criminal) 138 wherein it was observed that until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temp a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined to him. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced under : “In our opinion, the release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act ha reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for d the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined to him.” Reference can also be made to the authority cited as State of Punjab, 2020(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 516 Court had held that in the absence of any material to support the apprehension, parole cannot be denied on mere likelihood of involvement in similar offence while on parole as it can not be taken as an active and real apprehension of threat to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order. 2025 (O&M) - manner without even referring to the substantive material forming basis for declining the prayer of the convicts. Reference can be made to the authority Jassa Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab, 2016 (5) RCR (Crimina , wherein a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the parole is not liable to be denied on mere recording that prisoner on release would engage in smuggling activities causing danger to security of the country. Division Bench of this Court in Jugraj Singh @ Bhola v. State of Punjab and other, 2010 (25) RCR (Criminal) 138 wherein it was observed that until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined to him. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced under :- “In our opinion, the release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined to him.” Reference can also be made to the authority cited as Jeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2020(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 516, wherein a coordinate Bench Court had held that in the absence of any material to support the apprehension, parole cannot be denied on mere likelihood of involvement in similar offence while on parole as it can not be taken as an active and real of the State or to the maintenance of -3- manner without even referring to the substantive material forming basis for declining the prayer of the convicts. Reference can be made to the authority 2016 (5) RCR (Criminal) , wherein a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the parole is not liable to be denied on mere recording that prisoner on release would engage in smuggling activities causing danger to security of the country. Jugraj Singh @ Bhola v. State of Punjab and other, 2010 (25) RCR (Criminal) 138, wherein it was observed that until and unless sufficient material is available orary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined to him. The relevant “In our opinion, the release of a convict on parole is a wing of s been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is eclining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit Jeet Singh v. , wherein a coordinate Bench Court had held that in the absence of any material to support the apprehension, parole cannot be denied on mere likelihood of involvement in similar offence while on parole as it can not be taken as an active and real of the State or to the maintenance of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5464 7. parole cannot be denied to the petitioner merely on the grounds as taken by the respondents in the impugned order. Although, learned has raised an objection that the petitioner, on being released on parole, may indulge in illegal activities but the same alone cannot be made a ground to reject his claim for parole to attend the engagement of his sister, which in fact has been verified by the police and has been found to be true. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perfo unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined. Accordingly, the present order is set aside. period of personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistra 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 with a clear stipulation that in temporary release, his release warrants would be cancelled forthwith. 28.05.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 5464-2025 (O&M) In view of the discussion as made above, it is apparent that the parole cannot be denied to the petitioner merely on the grounds as taken by the respondents in the impugned order. Although, learned has raised an objection that the petitioner, on being released on parole, may indulge in illegal activities but the same alone cannot be made a ground to reject his claim for parole to attend the engagement of his sister, which in fact s been verified by the police and has been found to be true. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined. Accordingly, the present order is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a 15 days, commencing from 05.06.2025 personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistra 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 with a clear stipulation that in case the petitioner commits any offence during his period of temporary release, his release warrants would be cancelled forthwith. 28.05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) - In view of the discussion as made above, it is apparent that the parole cannot be denied to the petitioner merely on the grounds as taken by the respondents in the impugned order. Although, learned Public Prosecutor has raised an objection that the petitioner, on being released on parole, may indulge in illegal activities but the same alone cannot be made a ground to reject his claim for parole to attend the engagement of his sister, which in fact s been verified by the police and has been found to be true. The release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. The Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family rm certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a commencing from 05.06.2025, on furnishing of requisite personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistra 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 with a clear case the petitioner commits any offence during his period of temporary release, his release warrants would be cancelled forthwith. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -4- In view of the discussion as made above, it is apparent that the parole cannot be denied to the petitioner merely on the grounds as taken by Public Prosecutor has raised an objection that the petitioner, on being released on parole, may indulge in illegal activities but the same alone cannot be made a ground to reject his claim for parole to attend the engagement of his sister, which in fact s been verified by the police and has been found to be true. The release of a The Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family rm certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should petition is allowed. The impugned The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a , 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 with a clear case the petitioner commits any offence during his period of (MANISHA BATRA) MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document