Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 986 (PNJ)

KARAMJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CRWP/9390/2025 · 2026-02-10

Mandeep Pannu

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRWP-9390-2025 219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Karamjit Kaur State of Punjab and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. I.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The petitioner has filed the instant the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to responde petitioner on parole for 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was Special Court, Barnala rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 22/61/85 of the NPDS Act Barnala, Punjab CRA-S-3701-2023 against the judgment of conviction in this Court, which is pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks parole for a period of this regard was moved b declined vide order dated 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRWP Date of Decision : VERSUS Punjab and Others HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. I.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the instant the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to responde petitioner on parole for 8 weeks to meet her children and family members. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was Special Court, Barnala vide judgment dated 02.11.2023 rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in FIR No. 22/61/85 of the NPDS Act, at Police Station Punjab. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing 2023 against the judgment of conviction in this Court, which is Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks parole for a period of 8 weeks to meet her family and children this regard was moved before the competent authorit declined vide order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-9390-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. I.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent No.3 to release the to meet her children and family members. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted by the 02.11.2023 and sentenced to undergo in FIR No.66, dated 25.07.2021 registered , at Police Station Bhadaur, District Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing 2023 against the judgment of conviction in this Court, which is Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks meet her family and children. An application in efore the competent authority, however, the same was (Annexure P-1). It is submitted that while petition under Articles 226/227 of to release the convicted by the and sentenced to undergo registered , District Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing 2023 against the judgment of conviction in this Court, which is Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks . An application in however, the same was It is submitted that while TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.11 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-9390-2025 rejecting the parole application, the concer petitioner is having two minor children who are residing with the mother of the petitioner on mercy sake. all the conditions imposed by law or by this Court and assures that misuse the concession of parole and shall surrender before the jail authorities within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that the petitioner should no rejection of genuine and lawful request for parole is stated to be in violation of the provisions of the as well as the principles of 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent illegality in the impugned order dated District Magistrate, Moga Admittedly, the petitioner was also involved in 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment confined in Women Jail, Bathinda for grant of parole on humanitarian grounds, i.e. to Court in Manga @ Manga Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 133, other cases, would 2025 (O&M) rejecting the parole application, the concerned authorit petitioner is having two minor children who are residing with the mother of the petitioner on mercy sake. At the present stage, the petitioner undertakes to abide by conditions imposed by law or by this Court and assures that misuse the concession of parole and shall surrender before the jail authorities within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that the petitioner should not be made to suffer due to the petitioner’s past conduct. The rejection of genuine and lawful request for parole is stated to be in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, as well as the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of a convict. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent illegality in the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 District Magistrate, Moga, whereby the parole of the petitioner was rejected. Admittedly, the petitioner was also involved in four more cases under NDPS Act I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment confined in Women Jail, Bathinda. The present petition is confined to the for grant of parole on humanitarian grounds, i.e. to Manga @ Manga Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2020(4) RCR , observed that merely because the petitioner was involved in four would not be valid ground to deny him release on parole. -2- ned authority failed to consider that the petitioner is having two minor children who are residing with the mother of the At the present stage, the petitioner undertakes to abide by conditions imposed by law or by this Court and assures that she will not misuse the concession of parole and shall surrender before the jail authorities within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that the minor children of the t be made to suffer due to the petitioner’s past conduct. The rejection of genuine and lawful request for parole is stated to be in violation of the Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 natural justice and fundamental rights of a convict. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State, submits that there is no 2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the , whereby the parole of the petitioner was rejected. four more cases under NDPS Act I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for 10 years and now . The present petition is confined to the prayer for grant of parole on humanitarian grounds, i.e. to meet her minor children. This Manga @ Manga Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2020(4) RCR observed that merely because the petitioner was involved in four be valid ground to deny him release on parole. that the petitioner is having two minor children who are residing with the mother of the At the present stage, the petitioner undertakes to abide by he will not misuse the concession of parole and shall surrender before the jail authorities of the t be made to suffer due to the petitioner’s past conduct. The rejection of genuine and lawful request for parole is stated to be in violation of the 1962, Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments State, submits that there is no 1) passed by the , whereby the parole of the petitioner was rejected. four more cases under NDPS Act. the relevant Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, and now prayer This Manga @ Manga Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2020(4) RCR observed that merely because the petitioner was involved in four TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.11 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-9390-2025 7. In view of the limited prayer made petitioner and in view of the settled law petitioner is ordered 12.02.2026 to 14.04.2026 by the respondent authorities in accordance with law surrender before the 8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 10, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) In view of the limited prayer made and in view of the settled law, the present petition is allowed ordered to be released on parole for 12.02.2026 to 14.04.2026 on her completing the necessary formalities as required by the respondent authorities in accordance with law surrender before the concerned Jail Authority on 14.04.2026 before 5:00 PM. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the , the present petition is allowed. T to be released on parole for a period of 8 weeks w.e.f. on her completing the necessary formalities as required by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to on 14.04.2026 before 5:00 PM. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No by the learned counsel for the . The w.e.f. on her completing the necessary formalities as required . The petitioner is directed to All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.11 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document