CRWP-8204-2026 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CRWP-8204-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 MANDEEP SINGH @ DEEPA ..... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab. **** VIRINDERAGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur whereby the application moved by the petitioner seeking temporary release on parole for a period of eight weeks has been rejected. 2. The petitioner stands convicted in FIR No.131 dated 27.11.2020 registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Shekhwan, District Gurdaspur. Vide judgment dated 12.11.2024, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine. His appeal bearing CRA-S-4208-2024 against the judgment of conviction stands admitted and is pending before this Court. The petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail, Gurdaspur. SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.14 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8204-2026 (O&M) : 2 : 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for temporary release on parole for eight weeks, however, the same was rejected on the basis of the report furnished by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur. The Impugned order records that release of the petitioner would pose a threat to the security of the State, may result in breach of public order and that since cases under the NDPS Act are registered against him, there exists an apprehension that he may again indulge in similar activities. It is contended that the District Magistrate has merely reproduced the contents of the police report without undertaking any independent assessment. 4. It is further argued that the petitioner has maintained good conduct throughout his incarceration. Reliance is placed upon the Custody Certificate issued by the jail authorities which records that the petitioner has never committed any jail offence and no punishment has ever been awarded to him by the prison authorities. Learned counsel further submits that though the police report refers to six criminal cases, the record placed before this Court shows that the petitioner has already been acquitted in four of those cases and the remaining cases by themselves cannot constitute a valid ground for declining parole. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Chander vs. State of Punjab and others, 2017 (3) RCR (Criminal) 340, Baljit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (2) Law Herald 1796 and the recent Division Bench judgment in Gurwinder Singh alias Guri vs. State of Punjab and others (CRWP-5461-2025, decided on 05.05.2026). 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned order and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and, if released on parole, there exists an apprehension that he may abscond or indulge in similar SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.14 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8204-2026 (O&M) : 3 : criminal activities, thereby adversely affecting public order and the security of the State. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The impugned order, however, proceeds solely on the basis of the report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police which expresses an apprehension that the petitioner may again become active in drug-related activities and that his release may result in breach of public order. No objective material has been referred to either in the police report or in the impugned order to indicate that during incarceration the petitioner has misused any concession, violated prison discipline or indulged in any conduct which may reasonably justify such apprehension.The Custody Certificate placed on record shows that he has never committed any jail offence and no punishment has been imposed upon him by the jail authorities. 7. The legal position on the issue is no longer res integra. In Ram Chander (supra), the Division Bench held that mere likelihood of commission of another offence or possibility of breach of peace cannot by itself constitute sufficient ground to deny parole. Likewise, in Baljit Singh (supra), it was held that if the authorities entertain an apprehension regarding misuse of liberty, the same can adequately be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions including furnishing of substantial sureties. Recently, in Gurwinder Singh alias Guri (supra), the Division Bench reiterated that while considering a prayer for parole, a balance has to be maintained between the societal interest and the object of reformation of the prisoner. Mere apprehension of disturbance to peace or public tranquillity, unsupported by objective material, cannot constitute a valid ground to deny parole. SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.14 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8204-2026 (O&M) : 4 : 8. In the present case, except for a general apprehension expressed by the police authorities, no tangible material has been placed on record to justify denial of parole. On the contrary, the record reflects that the petitioner has maintained good conduct inside the jail and has not committed any jail offence. Even the assertion in the police report regarding involvement in six cases does not present the complete factual picture, inasmuch as the record indicates that the petitioner has already been acquitted in four of those cases. The District Magistrate has substantially reproduced the opinion of the police authorities without recording any independent satisfaction based upon objective material. Such an approach cannot be sustained in law. 9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of eight weeks from the date of his release, subject to his furnishing requisite surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur and subject to such other reasonable conditions as may be imposed for securing his surrender upon expiry of parole and for ensuring maintenance of peace during the parole period. 10. Upon completion of his parole period, he shall surrender before the jail authorities. 11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. (VIRINDERAGGARWAL) JUDGE 14.07.2026 S. Pathania Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No Whether Reportable             Yes/No SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.14 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document