235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 Jainder @ Ajay …Petitioner vs.

The State of U.T., Chandigarh & others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Grewal Present : Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Addl. P.P. for U.T., Chandigarh.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the office of the Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Administration, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of parole has been rejected. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for issuance of direction to grant parole in accordance with Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and Amended Act, 2018, for a period of 04 weeks.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 18.11.2024 and order of sentence dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in case FIR No.245 dated 13.09.2018 under Sections 302/307/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sarangpur, Chandigarh. He further submits that the petitioner has submitted an application seeking parole for a period of 28 days to respondent No.1. After submitting an application for parole to respondent No.1, the same was forwarded to the office of District Magistrate, Chandigarh, for a report regarding desirability of releasing the petitioner on parole. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s request for parole has been wrongly rejected on the basis of an adverse report submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh on the ground that no prisoner shall be released on parole if, based on the District Magistrate’s report, the State Government or its authorized officer is satisfied that such release would endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

3. Learned State counsel has vehemently argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and that the petitioner, if released on parole, may disturb public order and may also abscond as he has committed serious offences. Accordingly, it is urged that 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 Act 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 four weeks was declined by respondent No. 2 solely on report received from the office of the District Magistrate, Chandigarh. However, a perusal of the impugned order does not disclose any material or basis on which respondent No. 2 arrived at a conclusion that “there is a fear of breaking the law and order situation with the release of parole”. 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 allowed. 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