IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 02 JULY, 2025 Kuldeep Singh Sandhu ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab.

LAPITA BANERJI, J. CRM-W-389 OF 2025 Allowed, as prayed for.

MAIN CASE In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated March 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby application of the petitioner for release on parole, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.93 dated 05.09.2017 was registered under Sections 15 and 29/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

12 years along with fine.

3. The application for parole was made by the applicant on October 21, 2024 and the same was kept pending by the authorities which necessitated the filing of CRWP No.1036 of 2025. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated January 31, 2025, directed the authorities concerned to decide the petitioner’s application for parole within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Thereafter, the prayer of the petitioner was primarily rejected on the ground that the petitioner had prayed for parole for getting his wife medically treated but his family members could not produce any solid documentary evidence to support his claim. Only a doctor’s slip from Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran along with photocopy of the colposcopy report from a private Suyog Hospital was produced. The other ground for rejection was that the petitioner had links with drug peddlers and on his release on parole could indulge in the business of selling drugs and to abscond. Therefore, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran recommended rejection of the parole application of the petitioner and on the said basis, the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran, rejected the same without any cogent reason or independent application of mind.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the wife of petitioner is not well but even if that ground was not taken into consideration, still the petitioner was eligible for grant of parole. He further submits that during trial the petitioner was on regular bail for a period of more than five and a half years i.e from October 10, 2018 till May 12, 2024.

The petitioner has never misused such concession and was not implicated in any other case. The apprehension of commission of another offence cannot be a ground for rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for parole under Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Such apprehension in the case of the petitioner was completely misplaced.

5. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated March 20, 2025. Short reply dated April 20, 2025 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was taken on record. The detailed reply dated June 15, 2025 of Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib, was taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for the grant of parole by the petitioner was rightly rejected as there is an apprehension that if the petitioner is released on parole, he may again indulge in the illegal activity of selling drugs and damage the future of the children.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The petitioner has committed no jail offence during the period of incarceration or any other offence during the period of bail from October

10, 2018 to May 12, 2024, as an under trial.

9. The petitioner had never misused his concession during the said period. No jail offence has been committed by the petitioner and the conduct of the petitio