CRWP-13948-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 313 CRWP-13948-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Amit Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Patiala, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking release on regular parole for a period of eight weeks to meet his family members has been rejected in connection with FIR No.42 dated 31.03.2022 registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala vide judgment and order dated 14.02.2025 convicted the petitioner under MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-13948-2025 (O&M) -2- Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by filing an appeal before this Court bearing CRA-S-1036 of 2025, which is stated to be pending before this Court. 3. The petitioner is confined in Central Jail, Patiala and had undergone about two years and six months of imprisonment at the time of filing of the petition. On 27.06.2025, he submitted an application before the Jail Superintendent seeking regular parole for a period of eight weeks to meet his family members. Since no decision was taken thereon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CRWP No.11883 of 2025, which was disposed of on 06.11.2025 with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the application by passing a speaking order within one month. Pursuant thereto, the District Magistrate, Patiala passed the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 rejecting the request for parole. Aggrieved thereof, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness and has been passed without proper appreciation of the object underlying the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. It is contended that the petitioner has sought parole only to meet his family members, which is one of the recognized grounds for temporary release under the statute. He has already remained in MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-13948-2025 (O&M) -3- custody for a substantial period and his appeal against conviction is pending adjudication before this Court. The rejection of parole merely on the basis of previous criminal cases and a generalized apprehension that he may indulge in criminal activity again is legally unsustainable, particularly when there is no specific material indicating that his temporary release would endanger the security of the State or disturb public order. Even the police report does not record any apprehension regarding breach of peace, disturbance of law and order or threat to State security. It is argued that parole is intended to preserve family ties and facilitate social rehabilitation and cannot be denied solely because of the petitioner's antecedents. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by the competent authority and to surrender before the Jail Authorities immediately upon expiry of the parole period. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner was convicted in the present NDPS case after recovery of 20 grams of smack and 1180 intoxicant tablets and is presently undergoing the substantive sentence awarded by the learned Special Court. The petitioner has a criminal history and has previously been involved in several criminal cases, including an earlier conviction under the NDPS Act, besides convictions under the Prisons Act and Gambling Act. Learned State counsel further submits that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, after obtaining the report of the SHO, specifically opined that although there was no apprehension to State security or law and order, the petitioner is a habitual MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-13948-2025 (O&M) -4- offender engaged in narcotic offences and there exists a strong likelihood that, if released on parole, he may again indulge in the illegal trade of narcotic substances. Acting upon the said recommendation, the District Magistrate rightly rejected the parole application. It is, therefore, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The sole reason assigned in the impugned order for declining parole to the petitioner is that he is a habitual offender and, in the opinion of the police authorities, he may again indulge in narcotic offences if released temporarily. Significantly, the police report itself records that there is no apprehension of any threat to State security or disturbance of law and order on account of the petitioner's release. Thus, the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer for parole is founded only upon a speculative apprehension regarding possible future conduct. The object of parole is to enable a convict to maintain social and familial ties and to facilitate his rehabilitation. Temporary release is a reformative measure and cannot ordinarily be denied merely because the prisoner has criminal antecedents. If criminal history alone were to constitute a sufficient ground for rejection, almost every convict would stand disentitled to parole, thereby frustrating the very object of the statute. It is well settled that the competent authority is required to assess whether the release of a prisoner is likely to prejudice public order or endanger the security of the State. Mere apprehension that the prisoner may again commit an offence, unsupported by any tangible material demonstrating an imminent threat to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-13948-2025 (O&M) -5- public peace or security, cannot by itself justify denial of parole. Such an approach would amount to substituting conjecture for objective satisfaction. 8. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had ever misused the concession of parole or furlough on any previous occasion. The respondents have also failed to point out any specific circumstance showing that his temporary release for meeting family members would result in disturbance of public order. The adverse police report is founded primarily upon the petitioner's antecedents and not upon any concrete material relating to the proposed period of release. The petitioner has already undergone a considerable period of incarceration. His appeal against conviction is pending before this Court. Preservation of family ties is one of the recognized objects of temporary release under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner cannot be denied parole solely on the basis of a generalized apprehension expressed by the police authorities. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Patiala cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 9. In view of the discussion made above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.12.2025 is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on regular parole for a period of eight weeks to enable him to meet his family members, subject to his furnishing adequate bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the competent authority and subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed to ensure his peaceful MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-13948-2025 (O&M) -6- conduct and timely surrender before the Jail Authorities upon expiry of the parole period. 27.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.28 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document