256 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 20.01.2026 Jagsir Singh @ Sony .... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

Aman Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 3 of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 03.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, who has been convicted under NDPS Act, has sought parole for eight weeks to meet his family members, which has been rejected primarily on the ground that he may again indulge in drug trafficking, if released.

3. Status report by way of an affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 in Court is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Copy of the order has been given to the counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel while referring to para 5 of the status report submits that a huge quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner and therefore, he is not eligible for the concession of parole.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh @ Taina vs. State of Punjab and others (CRWP-5395-2023) decided on 06.05.2024 had considered a similar issue. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:

“12. As per impugned order dated 10.04.2023 based on the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, it is observed that in case petitioner is released on temporary parole, he can indulge in smuggling of narcotics and he may also abscond during parole. On this basis, prayer for parole was rejected by District Magistrate, Ferozepur by passing impugned order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-2). Such mere apprehension is not a valid ground for rejection of application filed by petitioner seeking parole. Affidavit filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Zira and impugned order dated 10.04.2023 Annexure P-2 do not come to the aid of the State justifying denial of parole to petitioner. Consideration of the question whether release of petitioner on parole is likely to endanger security of State or maintenance of public order has clearly not been carried out by the competent authority. Cogent material to indicate the same rather than mere registration of various cases has to be available.”

6. In Karanpreet Singh @ Giana @ Fateh vs. State of Punjab and others (CRWP-344-2025), Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

01.03.2025 also set aside the order denying the parole merely on the basis of criminal history and endangering public order or State security.

7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of 08 weeks from the date of his release, subject to the satisfaction of competent authority.

20.01.2026 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)

sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No