IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 28.10.2025 Jagjit Singh alias Jagga ......Petitioner Versus State Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Sumeet S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaa, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH , J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on eight weeks parole to meet his family members and to provide medical aid to his son, who is not psychologically fit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is currently undergoing sentence in FIR No. 121 dated 08.10.2002, registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar, Moga, in which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen years ₹

and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. It is further submitted that during the course of his incarceration, subsequently case, FIR No. 55 dated 23.05.2021, was registered against him under Section 9 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, on account of his failure to surrender within the stipulated period after availing parole. In the said case, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. Learned counsel contends that except for the said instance, the petitioner has a clean record of compliance with parole conditions on nineteen previous occasions and has never misused it or attempted to abscond. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, when he was granted parole for 414 days, he returned at the earliest possible opportunity, notwithstanding unavoidable delays due to illness and COVID-19 testing requirements.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been able to meet his family members for a long time and that one of his two sons, Davinder Singh, aged about 25 years, is suffering from psychiatric issues and requires the personal care, support, and affection of the petitioner as his father. Petitioner’s presence is also necessary to attend to household responsibilities and provide medical aid to his son.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 has rejected the petitioner’s request for eight weeks’ parole based on the report of Respondent No. 3, Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga. The report highlighted the petitioner’s involvement in other cases, including previous instance of 59 days delayed surrender after availing parole in the year 2020. Resultantly, a case under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, was faced and for that he was punished also. Therefore, vide order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure R-2), request to release on parole has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel argues that undoubtedly, petitioner is an accused/convict in four criminal cases. However, in two of the cases, substantive sentence period has already been completed; in one case, the sentence and fine are still pending; and in the remaining case, petitioner has been acquitted. The details of the cases, as mentioned in the reply filed by the respondents, are as follows:

i) FIR No. 120 dated 07.10.2002 – Convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act; substantive sentence period completed, however fine pending.

ii) FIR No. 225 dated 23.08.2012 – Convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act; substantive sentence period completed, however fine pending.

iii) FIR No.55 dated 23.05.2021, under Section 9 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release Act) – Sentence and fine pending.

iv) FIR No. 127 dated 03.11.1997 under Section 15 of NDPS ACt –

Petitioner acquitted on 10.02.2021.

5. Further argues that involvement of a prisoner in number of criminal cases should not be taken as a ground for rejection of request to