212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON RESERVED PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR ON ON FULL

29.01.2026 09.02.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 09.02.2026 Kulwant Singh @ Pippal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.).

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. Seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to grant 08 weeks parole to the petitioner, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India r/w Section 3(1) (d) of The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 15 years with fine of Rs.2 lacs under Section 21 (c) of NDPS Act vide impugned judgment dated 16.01.2025 by Special Court, Fast Track Special Court, Fazilka. Petitioner moved an application before the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Faridkot for grant of parole for 08 weeks but the same was kept pending before respondent No.2 for more than one year and thereafter, mother of petitioner approached this Court vide CRWP No.12368 of 2025 and directions were issued to decide the application of the petitioner in four weeks. Vide order dated 19.12.2025, the parole of the petitioner was rejected with the following observations:

“It has been found that due to 06 cases of commercial quantity under the Arms Act and NDPS Act being registered against the said prisoner, it is clear that the said prisoner is a habitual offender and that even after coming on parole release, he may again indulge in the business of arms and narcotics, which may pose a threat to the security of the State and peace and law and order.”

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

4. Facts noted above are not in dispute in the present case.

5. The case of the petitioner for release on parole has been declined on the ground that he would again start selling drugs.

6. In ‘Narinder Singh @ Nindi Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2020 (2) DC (Narcotics) 253, provisions of 1962 Act were held to be beneficial in nature and were held to be aimed at reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoners. Parole is granted not only in an emergent situation but also for purpose of socializing with family members. It is necessary for a convict to maintain a contact with society which will facilitate his reformation and absorption in society after his release.

7. Manner in which authorities are required to record satisfaction of danger to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order is not res integra. In ‘Jassa Singh @ Jassa Vs. State of Punjab’ 2016 (5) RCR (Criminal) 522 a Division Bench of this Court had observed as under:-

“……..For reaching satisfaction of danger to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order there has to be material before the District Magistrate, for consideration as to whether the release of a prisoner would be a threat to either or both of them. Parole cannot be denied and in fact is not liable to be denied on mere generalization by recording that generally it has been seen that prisoners on release generally engage themselves in smuggling activities causing danger to security of the country and contraband are again recovered from them. This can be ensured by asking the petitioner/prisoner to execute necessary bonds that while on parole he would maintain good behavior and will not indulge in any smuggling activities, besides, asking him to furnish heavy surety.”

8. Similarly in “Bansi Lal Versus State of Punjab and others”, 2016 (4)

RCR (Criminal) 1017, this Court had also observed as under: -

“15. The term 'Security of the State' out of the expressions of 'law and order', and 'public order' is considered more grave. I