219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRWP-9390-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 Karamjit Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. I.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab -.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent No.3 to release the petitioner on parole for 8 weeks to meet her children and family members.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted by the Special Court, Barnala vide judgment dated 02.11.2023 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in FIR No.66, dated 25.07.2021 registered under Section 22/61/85 of the NPDS Act, at Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala, Punjab. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing CRA-S-3701-2023 against the judgment of conviction in this Court, which is pending.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks parole for a period of 8 weeks to meet her family and children. An application in this regard was moved before the competent authority, however, the same was declined vide order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-1). It is submitted that while rejecting the parole application, the concerned authority failed to consider that the petitioner is having two minor children who are residing with the mother of the petitioner on mercy sake. At the present stage, the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the conditions imposed by law or by this Court and assures that she will not misuse the concession of parole and shall surrender before the jail authorities within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that the minor children of the petitioner should not be made to suffer due to the petitioner’s past conduct. The rejection of genuine and lawful request for parole is stated to be in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, as well as the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of a convict.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State, submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Moga, whereby the parole of the petitioner was rejected.

Admittedly, the petitioner was also involved in four more cases under NDPS Act.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents.

6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for 10 years and now confined in Women Jail, Bathinda. The present petition is confined to the prayer for grant of parole on humanitarian grounds, i.e. to meet her minor children. This Court in Manga @ Manga Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 133, observed that merely because the petitioner was involved in four other cases, would not be valid ground to deny him release on parole.

7. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the settled law, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of 8 weeks w.e.f. 12.02.2026 to 14.04.2026 on her completing the necessary formalities as required by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Jail Authority on 14.04.2026 before 5:00 PM.

8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

February 10, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No