02 JULY, 2025 Kuldeep Singh Singh Sandhu … v. Ve State of Punjab unjab and others
Case Details
CRWP NO. 2791 2791 OF 2025 (O&M) IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A AB AND ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP NO.279 O.2791 OF 2025 (O&M) DATE OF DEC F DECISION: 02 JULY, 2025 Kuldeep Singh Singh Sandhu ….Petitioner Versus Ve State of Punjab unjab and others ….Respondents CORAM : HO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI Present : M
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. for Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Mr l. AG, Punjab. LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. CRM-W-389 OF 9 OF 2025 Allowed, as prayed for. All MAIN CASE In this petition filed under Articles In t rticles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the the petitioner has challenged orde d order dated March 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2), 2), whereby application of the peti he petitioner for release on parole, has been dismis dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitione Lea titioner submits that FIR No.93 dated 05.09.201 09.2017 was registered under Sectio Sections 15 and 29/61/85 of the NDPS Act at ct at Police Station Chohla Sahib, Sahib, District Tarn Taran. The petitioner has b has been convicted under Section 15 tion 15(c) of the NDPS Act. The SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 4 CRWP NO. 2791 2791 OF 2025 (O&M) petitioner was s was sentenced to undergo rigorous im rous imprisonment for a period of 12 years along w long with fine. 3. The application for parole was The was made by the applicant on October 21, 202 1, 2024 and the same was kept pendi t pending by the authorities which necessitated the ed the filing of CRWP No.1036 of 20 of 2025. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vid t, vide order dated January 31, 202 1, 2025, directed the authorities concerned to de to decide the petitioner’s application cation for parole within a period of two weeks from from the date of receipt of copy o copy of the order. Thereafter, the prayer of the p the petitioner was primarily reject rejected on the ground that the petitioner had had prayed for parole for getting his ing his wife medically treated but his family mem members could not produce any sol ny solid documentary evidence to support his clai is claim. Only a doctor’s slip from from Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran along with pho photocopy of the colposcopy rep py report from a private Suyog Hospital was p was produced. The other ground f und for rejection was that the petitioner had li had links with drug peddlers and on nd on his release on parole could indulge in the n the business of selling drugs and s and to abscond. Therefore, the Senior Superint perintendent of Police, Tarn Taran re recommended rejection of the parole applica plication of the petitioner and on t on the said basis, the Deputy Commissioner, ioner, Tarn Taran, rejected the same w ame without any cogent reason or independent app nt application of mind. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lea tioner further submits that though the wife of petit f petitioner is not well but even if tha if that ground was not taken into consideration, still the petitioner was eligible fo for grant of parole. He further submits that du hat during trial the petitioner was on as on regular bail for a period of more than five a five and a half years i.e from October ber 10, 2018 till May 12, 2024. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 4 CRWP NO. 2791 2791 OF 2025 (O&M) The petitioner h oner has never misused such concessio ncession and was not implicated in any other case. case. The apprehension of commissio mission of another offence cannot be a ground for nd for rejecting the petitioner’s praye prayer for parole under Section 3 of the Punjab G jab Good Conduct Prisoner (Tempora mporary Release) Act, 1962. Such apprehension in ion in the case of the petitioner was co was completely misplaced. 5. Notice of motion was issued vide o No vide order dated March 20, 2025. Short reply date dated April 20, 2025 of the Depu Deputy Superintendent of Police was taken on n on record. The detailed reply reply dated June 15, 2025 of Superintendent, ndent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib l Sahib, was taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for the State subm Lea te submits that the application for the grant of pa of parole by the petitioner was righ as rightly rejected as there is an apprehension th ion that if the petitioner is released eleased on parole, he may again indulge in the il the illegal activity of selling drugs a rugs and damage the future of the children. 7. This Court has heard learned co Thi ned counsel for the parties and perused the mat e material on record. 8. The petitioner has committed no The jail offence during the period of incarceration ration or any other offence during the ng the period of bail from October 10, 2018 to May to May 12, 2024, as an under trial. 9. The petitioner had never misused The isused his concession during the said period. No No jail offence has been committe mmitted by the petitioner and the conduct of the f the petitioner in the jail has been g been good. It is manifest that the apprehension ex ion expressed by the authorities in ies in the impugned order dated March 03, 2025 , 2025 (Annexure P-2) is unfounded an ded and without any basis. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 4 CRWP NO. 2791 2791 OF 2025 (O&M) 10. It is necessary for a convict to m It i t to maintain his contact with the society which w hich would facilitate his reformation mation and transform him into a responsible citi le citizen at the time of his releas release, after completion of his sentence. The The impugned order dated March arch 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2) rejecting the ca the case of petitioner for release on se on parole is unsustainable and deserves to be se to be set-aside. 11. Consequently, the petition is allow Con allowed and the impugned order dated March 03 rch 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2) is set as set aside. The petitioner shall be released on par on parole for a period of six week weeks, subject to furnishing of necessary surety surety bonds to the satisfaction of the of the competent authority and on the expiry of six six weeks, he shall surrender to the r to the jail concerned. (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE , 2025 JULY 02, 2025 shalini Whether Speaki Whether reporta Speaking/reasoned: reportable: Ye Yes/No Yes/No Ye SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 4