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

03.02.2026 12.02.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 12.02.2026 Abhi Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. Seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside Annexure P-2 passed by respondents No.4 and 6 whereby 08 weeks parole to the petitioner has been rejected, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lac under Section 22 of NDPS Act vide impugned judgment dated 08.07.2025 by Judge, Special Court, Bathinda. Petitioner’s case for parole was recommended by Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda to meet his family members and to look after household affairs and the same was forwarded to the District Magistrate. Thereafter, letter No.2464 dated 10.11.2025 was forwarded to SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib and subsequently to DSP, Gidderbaha who rejected his parole with the following observations:

“It is apprehended that if the said accused/prisoner comes out of jail on parole, he may again indulge in the business of drug selling. There is every likelihood that his release may adversely affect public order and peace in the area. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and the campaign launched by the Punjab Government against drugs (war against drugs), his release on parole does not appear to be appropriate.”

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 indulge in selling intoxicants.

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. It may arise from within or outside the State. It is generally understood as an act of aggression from