CRWP-7812-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CRWP-7812-2026 Decided on: 16.07.2026 Baljinder Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG Haryana **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 5 in connection with FIR No. 410 dated 13.08.2016, registered under Sections 15 and 19 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, whereby the petitioner's request for grant of parole has been illegally and arbitrarily rejected. 2. Short reply by way of an affidavit of Sh. Rohan Singh Hooda, Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed in the Court today. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is inside jail for the last more than two years and request of releasing the petitioner on parole REENA 2026.07.17 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRWP-7812-2026 was declined by Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra vide order dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-2), by observing that the petitioner fall under the category of hard core prisoner and does not fulfill the mandatory requirement for grant of parole. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon photographs appended with the petition and submits that in ongoing rainy season there is no one to help the wife of the petitioner and his children. Moreover, only on the basis of one NDPS case in which he has been convicted, that too under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act, for possessing 150 Kgs of poppy husk, which is a naturally planted and there being no other case registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, he is entitled for releae on parole. 4. She further argues that, the Division Bench of this Court on several occasions dealt with the provisions of Section 3 of The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. In ‘Kulwinder Singh alias Taina Vs. State of Punjab and others’ 2024 NCPHHC 62430; Law Finder Doc Id #2592372, ‘Sukhjinder Singh Sukhi Vs. State of Punjab and others’ (CRWP-10281-2024; Date of Decision: 23.10.2024), and ‘Ajaib Khan Vs. State of Punjab and other,’ 2019 SCC Online P&H 3133, held that temporary parole cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner is a convict or is involved in many criminal cases or on a whimsical ground that he may disturb the peace of the society, though without any basis. In Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra), Division Bench held that by releasing on parole, every prisoner develops a sense and hope of life with a view to rehabilitate himself in the society and same is the paramount object of granting and releasing of the convict on parole. Moreover, maintaining continuity together with his family, friends and community would also help the convict to come out of REENA 2026.07.17 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRWP-7812-2026 mental agony and distress on account of continuing imprisonment within four walls of the jail. Relevant observations made in paragraph No.9 and 10 of the said judgment are reproduced herebelow: 9. It is settled position that normally temporary release on parole or furlough, as may be, is to be granted but can be declined, in case releasing authority is of the view that such release would be dangerous to security of the State or maintenance of public order. Section 6(2) of the Act provides for the same. Section 6 of the Act reads as under :- “6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary or where prisoners are not to be released.- Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4 - (1) it shall not necessary to consult the District Magistrate where the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner maintained good conduct during the period of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid sections; and (2) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order.” 10. Objectives of parole are twofold i.e. rehabilitation of offender and protection of society. The main purpose of parole is that prisoner can maintain continuity together with his family, friends and community and at the same time to save prisoner from harmful effects of continuous prisoner life. Parole enables a prisoner to develop a feeling of self confidence that there is a life beyond prison. It helps prisoner to develop a sense of hope and active interest in his life with REENA 2026.07.17 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRWP-7812-2026 a view to rehabilitate the prisoner. Competent authority can always impose sufficient and necessary conditions while granting parole. Gainful reference at this stage can be made to the judgment of Coordinate Bench in “Bansi Lal versus State of Punjab & Others”, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1017, where it was observed as under :- “11. ..... During incarceration of a prisoner in jail after his conviction he is entitled for temporary release on parole which though is a concession and not a right. However, in order to reform a prisoner a periodic temporary release on parole for short duration is necessary. This is a welfare measure in the interest of a prisoner ..... xx xx xx xx 15. The term 'Security of the State' out of the expressions of 'law and order', and 'public order' is considered more grave. It may arise from within or outside the State. It is generally understood as an act of aggression from outside, or militant and terrorists operations engineered by foreign agencies. It can also be effected by passing of classified information like documents, secrets, maps etc. to foreign countries or through undesirable foreign links. An act which poses a threat to the State is to be considered as a threat affecting the security of the State. 'Public order', however, is synonymous with public safety. It is something more than mere law and order. Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder. Maintenance of public order is intended to prevent grave public disorder, which is not the same as maintenance of law and order. The latter is comparatively of a lesser gravity and in fact of local significance. An act which does not affect the public at large or has no impact on it, is not to be taken as an act affecting maintenance of public order. The distinction between law and order and public order is one of degree and extent of reach of the REENA 2026.07.17 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRWP-7812-2026 act in question on society. In the case of breach of law and order it affects individuals directly involved as distinct from the public at large. This would raise a law and order problem only. The true test is the potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect some individuals and local persons while another though of a similar nature may impact the public at large. An act which disturbs the even tempo of life of the public at large affects the maintenance of public order. These aspects are to be considered by the concerned District Magistrates and competent authorities under Act while deciding to recommend or not to recommend the temporary release of a prisoner on parole and/or passing orders for temporary release by the competent authorities under the Act. The exercise is not to be lightly conducted and the concerned District Magistrate and/or the competent authorities are to apply their mind on the basis of inputs received by them for recommending or passing an order as the case may be for temporary release of prisoners on parole.” Similarly, in ‘Sukhjinder Singh Sukhi Vs. State of Punjab and others (supra), the convict was an accused and total nine cases were registered against him, but this Court considered that parole is a valuable right and is a significant step towards reformation of the accused. It is imperative to consider that a convict is also required to maintain his contact with the society, which would facilitate in his reformation as a responsible citizen at the time of his release after completion of sentence. In Ajaib Khan’s case (supra) need of parole was realised by this Court in a case of a convict who was marked and identified as ‘B’ category Gangster despite being involved in several cases. REENA 2026.07.17 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRWP-7812-2026 By referring to the above details, learned counsel prays for release of the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner has been convicted under the NDPS Act. Further submits that the petitioner’s release on parole at this stage may pose a risk to public order, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the present petition. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is of the view that there is no other case found registered against petitioner, except the present case in which he has been convicted. Moreover, this Court take due notice of the hardship faced by petitioner's wife and children during ongoing rainy season, as highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, keeping in view the humanitarian consideration, this Court is of the view that petitioner deserves to be granted temporary release. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on parole for a period of eight weeks from the date of his release to the satisfaction of learned District Magistrate concerned or any other authority concerned as per Rules. It is further directed that while releasing the petitioner on parole the conditions would be imposed as required in the jail manual towards the ends of securing the presence of the petitioner in jail after the completion of the parole period and also for the reason that the concession of temporary release may not be misused by the convict. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 16.07.2026 JUDGE reena Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO REENA 2026.07.17 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh