IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:30.01.2026 Baljinder Preet Singh ...Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present : Mr. Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2, whereby his request for grant of parole has been declined without assigning any cogent reason. A prayer has also been made to issue appropriate directions to respondent No. 2 to release the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for parole to attend to his ailing and widowed mother; to undertake repairs of his house and to meet his family members. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner fulfills all the conditions prescribed under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, and is ready to comply with all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel further contends that the respondent No.2 has rejected the application for parole solely on the basis of the report of the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar (Urban).

3. Learned State counsel submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and that the petitioner, if released on parole, may disturb public order and jump the parole as he is convicted under the NDPS Act and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. Sections 3 and 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 provide for the temporary release of eligible inmates (such as parole or furlough) for specific reasons, including family illness, death, or natural calamity, subject to good conduct. Section 3 provides for the grounds on which release may be granted, while Section 4 provides for the conditions, disqualifications, and safeguards, including potential denial if release poses a threat to state security.

6. In the instant case, the prayer made by the petitioner for temporary release on parole for a period of eight weeks was declined by respondent No. 2 solely on report received from the office of the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar (Urban). However, a perusal of the impugned order does not disclose any material or basis on which respondent No. 2 arrived at a conclusion that “if convict is released on parole then there is a threat to State security and maintenance of public order and may jump the parole.” Apart from that, it is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner is otherwise ineligible for grant of parole.

7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on temporary parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release from jail, subject to his furnishing sufficient bonds in terms of the statutory provisions to the satisfaction of the competent authority, which shall also impose such conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure that the temporary release is not misused. The petitioner shall undertake to maintain peace and good behaviour during the parole period and shall surrender back to jail immediately upon expiry of the parole period.

(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)

JUDGE (H.S.GREWAL)

JUDGE

30.01.2026 amit rana Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No