249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-3678-2026 Date of decision : 18.05.2026 Kashmir Singh @ Shera .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, D.A.G., Punjab. RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed seeking issuance of direction for setting aside/quashing of order dated 06.01.2026 passed by District Commissioner wherein, prayer for grant of parole for 08 weeks, was rejected with further prayer to direct respondents No.2 to 5 to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 08 weeks.

2. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was prosecuted in a case FIR No.62, dated 10.11.2017 under Sections 21/22/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar, District Gurdaspur and after completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of 03 years and 06 months vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Gurdaspur. The petitioner assailed the order of his conviction and sentence by way of filing CRA-S-2056-2024, which has been admitted by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2024. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for suspension of sentence bearing CRM No.34851 of 2024, vide order dated

27.01.2025, sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court. The petitioner applied for the grant of parole before the Jail Superintendent, Gurdaspur, which was forwarded to Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, who thereafter, sought report from SSP, Gurdaspur to carry out the verification of the parole case of the petitioner. The Police authorities submitting a report stating that the petitioner belongs to a village which is allegedly a hotspot for drug trafficking and therefore the parole of the petitioner was not recommended. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Gurdaspur rejected the parole case of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 06.01.2026. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that daughter of the petitioner is of marriageable age whose engagement has already been performed and thus, the petitioner moved an application for grant of 08 weeks parole before the Ld. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, however, the same has been rejected by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Gurdaspur vide impugned order dated 06.01.2026 on the ground that the petitioner belongs to a village which is a hotspot for drug trafficking. He has further submitted that case of the parole of the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary release) Act, 1962 and as per Section 3(1)(d) of the Act, he is entitled to the grant of parole. It is submitted that respondent No.2 after getting police verification report from respondent No.3 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, rejected the case of the petitioner for the grant of parole, vide impugned order dated 06.01.2026 on the ground that 05 more cases of similar nature are registered against the petitioner and the concerned village is hotspot of drug trafficking. He further submits that the Panchayat of his village has also supported the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for 08 weeks. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been declared a proclaimed offender and, thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent-authorities have wrongly declined prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole on the basis of totally flimsy grounds. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent- authorities is unsustainable in t