CRWP-7247-2026 -1- 103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-7247-2026 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 Sukhbir Singh @ Sukha ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simran Goria, AAG, Punjab. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 1. Present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(c) & (d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act’) for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3, whereby, the prayer for parole of the petitioner has been declined. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was prosecuted in case FIR No.09, dated 20.04.2012, under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, registered at SSOC (State Special Operation Cell) Amritsar, District Amritsar. After conclusion of the trial, he was convicted for the offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 15 years. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 08.05.2015 in FIR No.08 dated 08.05.2015, however, his sentence in the present case, has been suspended by this Court in an appeal bearing CRA-D-962-DB-2018 filed by him, which is pending for final adjudication. He further contends that the petitioner had been falsely SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.13 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7247-2026 -2- implicated in 13 other cases, out of which five cases were registered against him, when he was behind the bars. He contends that the petitioner is confined in Central Jail, Bathinda and applied for regular parole in the year 2023, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 16.10.2023. He has contended that the case of the petitioner for parole was rejected solely on the ground that he may indulge in the business of smuggling, however, the respondent-authorities failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner is behind bars since 08.05.2015 and he did not come out of the jail for even a single day for any reason. It is contended that as per Section 6 of the Act, parole can be declined only if there is threat to the State security as well as maintenance of public order, but in the present case, no such ground exists, and the petitioner's parole has been rejected merely on apprehensions. He further submits that as per the Punjab Prisoners Temporary Act, the convict is entitled for parole after four months custody after conviction, however, the petitioner is behind the bars since the year 2018. He has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Tarlochan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, passed in CRWP-2459-2011, decided on 10.02.2012, Ram Chander vs. State of Punjab and others, 2017(3) RCR (Crl.) 40. He thus, submits that the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Ms. Simran Goria, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. She has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She has filed the reply by way of affidavit of Hemant Sharma, Superintendent, Central Jail Bathinda. She has submitted that the petitioner SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.13 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7247-2026 -3- is a habitual offender who is involved in about 15 other cases. She submits that the petitioner's application for parole was duly considered and rightly rejected on the ground that, if he released on parole, he is likely to engage in smuggling activities owing to his alleged association with smuggling groups. She, thus, submits that no illegality has been committed while passing the impugned order and thus, the petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The sole ground on which the petitioner's prayer for temporary release has been declined is the apprehension that, if he released on parole, he may indulge in smuggling activities owing to his alleged association with smuggling groups. However, the impugned order does not disclose any material to substantiate such apprehension. Admittedly, the petitioner has remained in custody since 08.05.2015 and has not been released from jail even for a single day during this period. The respondents have not placed on record any material to demonstrate that his release on parole is likely to endanger the security of the State or prejudice the maintenance of public order, as contemplated under Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. It is well settled that parole cannot be denied merely on the basis of vague apprehensions or the criminal antecedents of a prisoner. 6. Division Bench of this Court in case of Avdesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, in CRWP-2664-2023 decided on 02.06.2023, has held as under:- “16. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the claim of the petitioner had SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.13 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7247-2026 -4- 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 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 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. 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.” 7. This Court finds that the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents. 8. Thus, in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the settled legal position, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of 06 weeks on his completing the necessary formalities, as required by the respondent-authorities in SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.13 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7247-2026 -5- accordance with law. 9. Petition stand allowed in the above terms. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 09.07.2026 sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SHARMILA DEVI 2026.07.13 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document