IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:21.01.2026 Ravinder Kumar ...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. R.S. Sangha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2, whereby his request for grant of parole has been declined without assigning any cogent reason. A prayer has also been made to issue appropriate directions to respondent No. 2 to release the petitioner on parole under the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) for a period of eight (08) weeks.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in case FIR No. 74 dated 11.05.2018, registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, and is presently confined in Central Jail, Faridkot. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had applied for parole to attend the urgent family affairs and to undertake necessary repairs of his residential house. His mother is dependent upon him and there is no other male member in the family to look after her. Learned counsel further submits that the Panchayat has “No Objection Certificate”, in case the petitioner is released on bail and there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner will misuse the parole and create threat to public order. Learned counsel next contends that the application for parole was rejected solely on the basis of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

4. Learned State counsel submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and that the petitioner, if released on parole, may flee from the criminal law and abscond, which may result into the serious law and order problem for the State and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

6. Sections 3 and 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 provide for the temporary release of eligible inmates (such as parole or furlough) for specific reasons, including family illness, death, or natural calamity, subject to good conduct. Section 3 provides for the grounds on which release may be granted, while Section 4 provides for the conditions, disqualifications, and safeguards, including potential denial if release poses a threat to state security.

7. In the instant case, the prayer made by the petitioner for temporary release on parole for a period of eight weeks was declined by respondent No. 2 solely on report received from the office of the the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib. However, a perusal of the impugned order does not disclose any material or basis on which respondent No. 2 arrived at a conclusion that “convict if released on parole, then there is threat to the State security and there would be disturbance of public order.” Apart from that, it is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner is otherwise ineligible for grant of parole.

8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on temporary parole for a period of four weeks from the date of his release from jail, subject to his furnishing sufficient bonds with heavy sureties in terms of the statutory provisions to the satisfaction of the competent authority, which shall also impose such conditions as may be deemed necessary