Sr. No.101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 20.11.2025 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 01.12.2025 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on 01.12.2025 the website

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment Full is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of Not applicable full judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Ms. Manveen Kahlon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Himanshu Raj, Additional A.G., Punjab.

***

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated December 26, 2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby application of the petitioner for release on parole, has been dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Tarn Taran.

2. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 21 (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS’) in FIR No.123 dated 15.09.2017 under Sections 22/27-A/20 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Ludhiana. The petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years along with fine.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for parole was sent to the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran vide office letter No.12552 dated September 13, 2023, by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib. The same was further forwarded by the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran vide letter dated 29.09.2023, for a verification report.

4. On the basis of the report of the SHO, Police Station Jhabal, Tarn Taran dated December 26, 2024 which was forwarded by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran to the Deputy Commissioner, (DC) Tarn Taran on January 07, 2025, the petitioner’s case for grant of parole was rejected vide letter dated January 20, 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in urgent need of parole for repairing his house which is in a dilapidated condition.

6. The primary reason for rejection of the prayer for parole of the petitioner was that his conduct was dangerous and that he could commit a crime during his release on parole. Furthermore, the DC opined that with the petitioner’s release on parole there could be a risk of disruption in State’s security and maintenance of public order or the petitioner may indulge in the business of selling drugs or could abscond and therefore the prayer for grant of parole was rejected. The SHO had taken a stand in the report dated December 26, 2024 sent by the SHO to the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner was lodged in jail in case FIR No.147 dated November 12, 2018 and had a previous NDPS case pending against him in FIR No.123 dated September 15, 2017 and his parole case should be declined as he may indulge in similar activity if released on parole. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the aforesaid grounds are misconceived.

7. Notice of motion was issued on February 7, 2025. Pursuant to the issuance of notice of motion, a reply by way of an affidavit of Kulwinder Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib was filed on March 20, 2025.

8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for grant of parole was rightly rejected due to the recovery of a heavy quantity of heroin from the petitioner as the apprehension was well- founded that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may indulge in the illegal activity of selling drugs thereby damaging the future of the children in the society.

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

10. When the present petition came up for hearing on 11.11.2025 this Court noted t