219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 Jasbir Singh alias Sonu …Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Grewal Present : Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by Deputy Commissioner-Cum-District Magistrate, Tarn Taran (respondent No.2), whereby, the parole of the petitioner has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of eight weeks.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted an application along with the panchayatnama (Annexure P-3) to respondent No. 4 for grant of parole. The said application was taken up by the respondents at various levels. However, since no decision was being taken on his application, the petitioner filed a petition bearing CRWP No. 10057-2024 before this Court and vide order dated 18.10.2024 passed by this Court, a direction was issued to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for release on parole within a period of four weeks. However, vide order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-5), respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Tarn Taran rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that, if he released on parole, the petitioner may again indulge in peddling of drugs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, made prayer for allowing this petition and granting parole for a period of 08 weeks to the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected as he is a habitual offender and there is apprehension of his being indulged in drug peddling again, if granted parole. His release on parole may also disturb the public order. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 provides for temporary release of any prisoner on being satisfied of the circumstances as mentioned therein and for the period as mentioned in Section 3 sub-section (2) of the Act, 1962. In the instant case, prayer made by the petitioner for temporary release on parole for a period of 08 weeks had been declined by respondent No. 2 only on the ground that if released on parole, he might again smuggle drugs and disturb the public order. However, a perusal of the impugned order nowhere reflects any basis as to how respondent No. 2 has come to the said conclusion. It is not the case of the respondents-authorities that the petitioner is not otherwise entitled to be granted the parole. It is well settled that it is necessary for a convict to maintain his contact with society so as to enable his reformation and transform him into a responsible citizen on his release. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

7. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on temporary parole of a period of 04 weeks from the date of his release from jail, subject to his furnishing sufficient bonds in terms of statutory provisions to the satisfaction of the competent authority, who would also impose requisite conditions to ensure that the temporary release is not misused. The petitioner shall also undertake to maintain peace and good behavior during this period. He shall surrender back to jail after expiry of the period of his parole.

(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)

JUDGE (H.S.GREWAL)

JUDGE

09.12.2025 hemlata