KUDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPATMENT OF HOME AFFARIS CIVIL SECTRAIT CHANDIGARH
CWP/13209/2026 · 2026-04-30
Jagmohan Bansal
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17153 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17153 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
145
CWP-13209-2026 Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
KULDEEP SINGH ALIAS POLA ALIAS PODA ...Petitioner Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
…Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Ms. Manveen Kahlon, Advocate
for the petitioner
Ms. Neha Sonawane, DAG Punjab
*** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1.
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 14.11.2025 whereby his request for transfer from Central Jail, Ludhiana to Central Jail, Amritsar or Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib has been rejected. He is further seeking direction to respondents to transfer him to Central Jail, Amritsar or Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib.
2.
As per pleadings, the petitioner was convicted in FIR No.131 dated 13.09.2013. He was awarded sentence of imprisonment of 10 years. He was lodged at Central Jail, Amritsar, however, for last one year is confined at Central Jail, Ludhiana. He has been transferred on administrative grounds.His transfer is in violation of Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950. His family is staying 180 KM away from Central Jail, DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.30 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-13209-2026
-2-
Ludhiana. He has four years’ old daughter and ailing mother. His wife is only member in the family who is earning livelihood. She cannot leave her daughter and mother-in-law and visit Ludhiana to meet him. He preferred CWP-29623-2025 before this Court seeking his transfer which was disposed of vide order dated 01.10.2025 with a direction to respondents to decide his representation. The respondent by impugned
order has rejected his representation.
3.
Learned State counsel at the outset submits that the petitioner made representation on 01.12.2025 which was declined vide order dated
03.12.2025. The petitioner has not placed on record said order.
4.
Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh with better particulars.
5.
Dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.
6.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE April 30, 2026 Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable
Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.30 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document