In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh 101 CRM-W-939-2026 in/and CRWP-4728-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:-16.07.2026 Rahul Kumar @ Gobind … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J . (Oral) CRM-W-939-2026 By way of filing the instant application, the applicant/petitioner seeks preponement of the main case, which stands fixed for 21.09.2026. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the hearing of the main petition is preponed from 21.09.2026 and is taken on board today. CRWP-4728-2026 (Main case) 1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.5 – The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, Punjab. Further prayer PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.16 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRWP-4728-2026 (O&M) ( 2 ) has been made for directing the official respondents to release the petitioner for eight weeks parole enabling him to restore his social ties with his family as well as to meet and look after his family members and to settle the household affairs under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was prosecuted in a case bearing FIR No.179, dated 07.10.2016, under Sections 376, 494, 496, 342, 328, 363, 506, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Moga. He has submitted that after conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for 20 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.6,18,000/- vide judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. He has submitted that the petitioner assailed the order of his conviction and sentence by way of filing CRA-D-1035-2018, which is pending adjudication before this Court. He has submitted that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRWP No.2115 of 2026 seeking grant of parole, and the same had been disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2026 while directing respondent No.5 to process, consider and dispose of the application dated 26.01.2026 moved by the petitioner, expeditiously in accordance with law. It has been submitted that after the aforesaid criminal writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, respondent No.5 had declined the application filed by the petitioner seeking parole vide speaking order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-3). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of the total awarded sentence of 20 years, the petitioner had already undergone the PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.16 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRWP-4728-2026 (O&M) ( 3 ) custody of 06 years, 01 month and 26 days and, thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent-authorities have wrongly declined prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole on the basis of totally flimsy grounds vide order dated 10.03.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) has been passed in violation of the law settled by this Court in Avdesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, in CRWP-2664-2023 decided on 02.06.2023 and thus deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in various other cases and he can also escape in case of release on parole. 5. Heard. 6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is deciphered that out of the awarded sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone more than 06 years sentence. As per the law settled, the provisions of parole are designed to bring the convicts in mainstream of the life. The prayer for grant of parole cannot be declined in a mechanical manner. The issue regarding apprehension of breach of peace etc. has already been dealt with by this Court time and again. This ground can never be justifiable for rejecting the application filed by any accused for grant of parole. The petitioner has every right to meet his family members. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that parole application of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the mechanical grounds like breach of peace or creation of unpleasant situation by the convict especially when this observation has been made without PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.16 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRWP-4728-2026 (O&M) ( 4 ) referring to any reliable material which the authority concerned had considered before coming to such a conclusion. 8. Hon’ble the 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 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.” 9. Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case on the anvil of the law settled, the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-3), being unsustainable in the eyes of law, is hereby set aside. PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.16 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRWP-4728-2026 (O&M) ( 5 ) 10. Thus the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent No.5 – The Superintendent of Prison, Central Jail, Ferozepur, Punjab to pass a fresh order on the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 04 weeks. 11. Petition stands allowed in the above terms. ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) JUDGE 16.07.2026 ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) Pankaj JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.16 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment