IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:04.07.2025 Jaswinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Present: Mr. Tushaar Madaan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG, Punjab.

****

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Magistrate, Patiala, vide which request of the petitioner for grant of 8 weeks parole to him has been declined and further for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was prosecuted in case FIR No.122 dated 18.07.2006, registered under Sections 15/25/29/60/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Fatehabad. After completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for 14 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. The petitioner assailed the order of his conviction and sentence by way of filing CRA-D-692-DB-2009, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2012. It is submitted that respondent no.4 had recommended the grant of eight weeks parole to the petitioner to meet his family members on 09.01.2025 and the same was duly forwarded to respondent no.3. It is further submitted that brother-in-law of the petitioner has also given an affidavit (Annexure P-1) to the effect that the petitioner would be residing with him during the parole period. He further submits that the Panchayat of village Kaler Bhaini, Block Patran, District Patiala has also supported the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole vide Annexure P-2. It is submitted that out of the awarded sentence, the petitioner had already undergone about 12 years of sentence and, thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent-authorities have wrongly declined prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole on the basis of totally flimsy grounds. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities is unsustainable in the eyes of law in view of the law settled and, thus, submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

3. Learned State counsel, per contra, submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in various other FIRs and he can also escape in case of release on parole.

4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that out of the awarded sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone about 12 years sentence. Brother-in-law of the petitioner has given an affidavit (Annexure P-1) to the effect that the petitioner would reside with him in case of release on parole. Further, Gram Panchayat of village Kaler Bhaini, Block Patran, District Patiala has also supported case of the petitioner vide Annexure P-2. As per the law settled, the provisions of parole are designed to bring the convicts in mainstream of the life. The prayer for grant of parole cannot be declined in a mechanical manner. The issue regarding apprehension of breach of peace etc. has already been dealt with by this Court time and again. This ground can never be justifiable for rejecting the application filed by any accused for grant of parole. The petitioner has every right to meet his family members.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that parole application of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the mechanical grounds like breach of peace or creation of unpleasant situation by the convict especially when this observation has been made without referring to any reliable material which the authority concerned had considered before coming to such a