CRWP-10105-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106) CRWP-10105-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.08.2026 JAGTAR SINGH … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Prateek Pandi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.06.2026 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate, Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner's plea for grant of parole has been rejected, the impugned order being vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness and non-adherence to the statutory framework governing temporary release of prisoners under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and the Rules framed thereunder, and further for issuance of a consequential mandamus directing the GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.21 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-10105-2026 (O&M) 2 respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks, in accordance with law. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was convicted in FIR No.7 dated 08.01.2006, registered under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D and 420 IPC at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 01.10.2010. The petitioner preferred appeal i.e. CRA-S-2787-SB-2010 against the said judgment, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2014. 2.1. The petitioner subsequently applied for parole before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kapurthala, on 30.08.2024, which was forwarded to the learned District Magistrate, Jalandhar, vide communication dated 03.09.2024. The requisite verification was thereafter sought from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), and the Gram Panchayat of the petitioner's village also furnished a Panchayatnama expressing no objection to his release on parole. As the matter remained undecided, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CRWP-242-2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2025 with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's parole case within four weeks. However, the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, rejected the petitioner's claim vide order dated 27.01.2025. The said order was assailed before this Court in CRWP No. 2175 of 2025, whereupon this Court, vide order dated 19.08.2025, set aside the rejection order and granted the petitioner parole for a period of two weeks. The GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.21 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-10105-2026 (O&M) 3 petitioner was thereafter released on parole on 20.11.2025 and, significantly, surrendered back within the stipulated period on 05.12.2025 without any adverse incident. 2.2. Upon the next parole becoming due, the petitioner submitted a fresh application, which was forwarded by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 02.02.2026. Since the matter was again not decided, the petitioner approached this Court in CRWP No. 6110 of 2026, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.05.2026, directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the parole case within four weeks. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 23.06.2026, whereby the petitioner's prayer for eight weeks' parole was rejected. The impugned order proceeds essentially on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), recording that multiple cases are registered against the petitioner and alleging that he is habitual of committing offences while on parole, with an apprehension that his release may result in his indulging in serious and heinous criminal activities and may adversely affect law and order. Hence the criminal writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order proceeds on a mere apprehension, unsupported by any cogent, objective or contemporaneous material demonstrating that the petitioner's release on parole would either endanger the security of the State or prejudicially affect the maintenance of public order. It is further contended that the petitioner had earlier been granted parole by this Court and, having availed the concession, duly surrendered within the prescribed period, which materially belies any apprehension that he would misuse the GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.21 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-10105-2026 (O&M) 4 liberty or evade the process of law. Learned counsel submits that mere registration of other criminal cases, without anything more, cannot constitute an absolute or mechanically sustainable ground for denial of parole, particularly when the competent authority is required to examine the petitioner's claim in the light of the statutory parameters prescribed under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is, accordingly, contended that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and warrants interference by this Court. A prayer is, therefore, made for quashing of the impugned order and for issuance of an appropriate direction to release the petitioner on parole. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned DAG, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Punjab and vehemently opposes the petition. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed after consideration of the report furnished by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), wherein it has been specifically reported that multiple criminal cases are registered against the petitioner and that he is habitual of committing offences while on parole. It is further submitted that, having regard to his antecedents and the nature of the allegations against him, there exists a reasonable apprehension that, if released on parole, the petitioner may again indulge in criminal activities of a serious and heinous nature, thereby posing a potential threat to the maintenance of law and order. Learned State counsel accordingly submits that the competent authority has rightly declined the request for temporary release GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.21 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-10105-2026 (O&M) 5 after taking into consideration the adverse police report and the antecedents of the petitioner. On these premises, it is contended that no ground for interference with the impugned order is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate has failed to duly appreciate the material circumstance that the petitioner was earlier granted parole pursuant to the specific directions issued by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 passed in CRWP-2175-2025, titled Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab and Others. The petitioner duly availed the said concession and, significantly, surrendered before the Jail Authorities within the prescribed period, without committing any offence or misusing the liberty so granted. The petitioner's satisfactory conduct during the earlier period of parole constitutes a material and relevant circumstance which could not have been disregarded while considering his subsequent request for temporary release. 6.1. It is further evident that the impugned order does not disclose any specific or cogent material demonstrating that the petitioner's release on parole would be likely to endanger the security of the State or prejudicially affect the maintenance of public order, as contemplated under the statutory scheme governing temporary release. Mere reference to the registration of other criminal cases, without any objective material establishing a proximate likelihood of misuse of parole or disturbance of public order, could not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis for rejection GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.21 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-10105-2026 (O&M) 6 of the petitioner's claim. The earlier conduct of the petitioner, particularly his timely surrender and absence of any allegation of misuse of the concession granted by this Court, assumes considerable significance in this regard. 6.2. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.06.2026 (Annexure P-10) is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Jalandhar, is directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner's parole case afresh, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable statutory provisions, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 22.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.21 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document