IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND ARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Daksh Arora ….Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 09.12.2025 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.12.2025 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 19.12.2025

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full

pronounced or whether the full judgment is

pronounced

5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable

judgment, and reasons thereof

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Randeep Singh Waraich (Rana), Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner has challenged the refusal to recommend the petitioner’s release on parole by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, vide letter dated February 10, 2025 (Annexure P-1) relying upon the report

submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar.

2. FIR No.32 dated 01.03.2021 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana (Rural). The petitioner was convicted under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 16 years along with fine.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for parole way back in 2024. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, initiated his case and sent it for verification to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, vide letter No.4562 dated 18.06.2024. The District Magistrate refused to recommend the petitioner’s case for parole relying on the erroneous report given by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, U.P who opined that if released on parole, the petitioner could again commit a crime under the NDPS Act with motive of earning undue profit for his personal benefit which could affect the people in the neighbourhood.

4. Furthermore, without any factual basis, the Senior Superintendent of Police opined that wrong people could gather near the petitioner and therefore, commission of any unlawful activity by the petitioner could not be ruled out. The District Magistrate was again written to by the Additional Director General of Police (Prisons), Punjab which was received by him on March 18, 2025, wherein specific reasons were sought for either recommending or not recommending the grant of parole to the petitioner within ten days. Thereafter, no response was received from the office of District Magistrate. Such inordinate delay to consider petitioner’s prayer for grant of parole is against the letter and spirit of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary) Release Act, 1962.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner additionally submits that the petitioner could commit some other offence in future was no valid ground for rejection of the parole. Moreover, as the petitioner’s wife is suffering from ill health and his presence is genuinely required to look after her, the petitioner’s case should be considered sympathetically. The attention of the Court is drawn to the fact that during trial period, the petitioner was on regular bail from February 12, 2022 till October 24, 2023 and neither did he jump the bail by absconding nor did he misuse such concession, in any other way. Therefore, the apprehension that the petitioner could indulge in commission of similar criminal offences was completely unfounded.

6. Notice of motion in the present writ petition was issued on April 29, 2025. Reply dated May 26, 2025 was filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for the grant of parole by the petitioner was rightly not recommended as there was a genuine apprehension by the authorities tha