S. No.249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRWP No.10772 of 2025 Date of Decision:10.11.2025 Shyam Sunder alias Sunder .....Petitioner Vs.

State of UT, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. PP, U.T., Chandigarh.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of impugned order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P.2) and for directing the respondents to grant parole to the petitioner – Shyam Sunder alias Sunder, to meet his family members. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 arising out of FIR No.88 dated 15.04.2019 registered at Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh and has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakhs and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months. He is presently confined in jail for the last more than one year after his conviction. He has not committed any jail offence during his custody. He applied for parole for 28 days to meet his family members but the authorities have rejected the same on the apprehension that in case he is released on parole, his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. However, the application for parole has been rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner on mere apprehension without there being any material to substantiate any such remarks. It has been prayed that petitioner may be granted concession of parole for 28 days to meet his family members.

3. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed in Court. The same is taken on record. Prayer made by the petitioner has been opposed on the basis of report of the SSP, Chandigarh

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

5. The temporary release of prisoners for good conduct is governed by the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary) Release Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “1962 Act”). The only embargo upon the release of the prisoner is laid down in Section 6 of the 1962 Act, which is reproduced as under:- "[6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary or where prisoners are not to be released.__Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4,--

(i) it shall not be necessary to consult the District Magistrate where the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner maintained good conduct during the period of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid sections; and (ii) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order".

6. Section 6 of 1962 Act, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 522 – Jassa Singh @ Jassa Vs.

State of Punjab. After noticing the provision, the Division Bench held as under:-

7. In terms of the above Section 6 (ii) of the Act, a prisoner is not entitled to be released under the Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Temporary release of a prisoner on parole or furlough as the case may be can be denied if his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. 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,