(O&M) Daksh Arora … v. Ve State of Punjab unjab and another
Case Details
CRWP No.4203 o 203 of 2025 IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A AB AND ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP N WP NO.4203 OF 2025 (O&M) Daksh Arora ….Petitioner Versus Ve State of Punjab unjab and another ….Respondents 1. 2. 3. The date w date when the judgment is reserved The date w date when the judgment is pronounce ounced The date w aded date when the judgment is uploaded 4. Whether the judgment is ether only operative part of the ju is judgment jud ll the full nounced or whether nounced pronounce pronounce 09.12.2025 18.12.2025 19.12.2025 Full 5. The delay judgment, delay, if any of the pronounceme ment, and reasons thereof ncement of full Not applicable
Legal Reasoning
titioner. It is trite law that an act of SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.19 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 5 CRWP No.4203 o 203 of 2025 omission/inactio inaction on the part of the authorit uthority is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. A A beneficial reference can be n be made to the judgment of Supreme Court Court in “Public Services Tribunal, nal, Bar Association v. State of U.P and anothe other” (2003) 4 SCC 104. 13. Consequently, the petition is allo Con is allowed keeping in mind the objectives for gr for grant of parole and also the reaso reason that his wife is unwell and needs his care a care and attention. Since no final ord order by the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffa uzaffarnagar, U.P has yet been pass n passed as the recommendation from the Distric District Magistrate is still awaited, thi ed, this Court has no other option but to set-asid aside the recommendation of the of the District Magistrate dated February 10, 20 10, 2025 as the same is without any ut any factual or legal basis. The recommendation ndation sought for vide letter dated M ated March 18, 2025 has not seen the light of the of the day and such an inaction/omis n/omission on the part of District Magistrate is ag e is against the true letter and spirit o pirit of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temp (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Acc Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner sh ner shall be released on parole for a for a period of six weeks, subject to furnishing of ing of necessary surety bonds to the s o the satisfaction of the competent authority and o and on the expiry of six weeks he he shall surrender to the jail concerned. (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE DECEMBER Shalini ER 18, 2025 Whether Speaki Whether reporta Speaking/reasoned: reportable: Ye Yes/No Yes/No Ye SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.19 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5
Arguments
CORAM : HO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI Mr. Randeep Singh Waraich (Rana Present : Mr for the petitioner. for (Rana), Advocate, Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab Mr Punjab. LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. In this writ petition filed under Art In t er Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the p the petitioner has challenged the the refusal to recommend the petitioner’s rele s release on parole by the District istrict Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, vide letter dated r dated February 10, 2025 (Annexure exure P-1) relying upon the report submitted by the by the Senior Superintendent of Polic f Police, Muzaffarnagar. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.19 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 5 CRWP No.4203 o 203 of 2025 2. FIR No.32 dated 01.03.2021 FIR was registered against the petitioner unde under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Su pic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafte einafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) at Police S olice Station Dakha, District Ludhiana dhiana (Rural). The petitioner was convicted under under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDP e NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorou igorous imprisonment for a period of 1 od of 16 years along with fine. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lea itioner submits that the petitioner had applied for ed for parole way back in 2024. The S . The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, initia , initiated his case and sent it for it for verification to the District Magistrate, Mu e, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, v esh, vide letter No.4562 dated 18.06.2024. The 4. The District Magistrate refused to sed to recommend the petitioner’s case for parole parole relying on the erroneous re ous report given by the Senior Superintendent ndent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, U.P , U.P who opined that if released on parole, the p , the petitioner could again commit a mit a crime under the NDPS Act with motive of ive of earning undue profit for his pe his personal benefit which could affect the people people in the neighbourhood. 4. Furthermore, without any Fur factual basis, fac the Senior Superintendent ndent of Police opined that wrong pe ong people could gather near the petitioner and and therefore, commission of any f any unlawful activity by the petitioner could could not be ruled out. The District M strict Magistrate was again written to by the Additi Additional Director General of Police olice (Prisons), Punjab which was received by him by him on March 18, 2025, wherein s erein specific reasons were sought for either recom recommending or not recommending ending the grant of parole to the petitioner within within ten days. Thereafter, no respo o response was received from the office of Distric District Magistrate. Such inordinate d nate delay to consider petitioner’s SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.19 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 5 CRWP No.4203 o 203 of 2025 prayer for grant grant of parole is against the letter an tter and spirit of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisone risoners (Temporary) Release Act, 19 ct, 1962. 5. Learned counsel appearing on Lea g on behalf of the petitioner additionally sub submits that the petitioner could co commit some other offence in future was no v no valid ground for rejection of th of the parole. Moreover, as the petitioner’s wife ’s wife is suffering from ill health an alth and his presence is genuinely required to loo to look after her, the petitioner’s c ner’s case should be considered sympathetically tically. The attention of the Court is d rt is drawn to the fact that during trial period, the the petitioner was on regular bail r bail from February 12, 2022 till October 24, 202 4, 2023 and neither did he jump the the bail by absconding nor did he misuse such con concession, in any other way. Ther . Therefore, the apprehension that the petitioner co ner could indulge in commission of si n of similar criminal offences was completely unfo y unfounded. 6. Notice of motion in the present w No esent writ petition was issued on April 29, 2025. 2025. Reply dated May 26, 2025 was 5 was filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Lud Ludhiana. 7. Learned counsel for the State subm Lea te submits that the application for the grant of par of parole by the petitioner was rightly rightly not recommended as there was a genuine nuine apprehension by the authoritie thorities that he might commit a similar offence, fence, thereby damaging the future o ture of the people, if released on parole. He also e also submits that a specific recomm ecommendation/rejection from the District Magistr agistrate is still awaited pursuant to ant to the letter dated March 18, 2025 sent by the by the Jail Superintendent. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.12.19 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 5 CRWP No.4203 o 203 of 2025 8. This Court has heard learned co Thi ned counsel for the parties and perused the mat he material on record including all the all the replies/reports filed by the State. 9. The petitioner has committed no ja The d no jail offence during the period of incarceration eration and there is no allegation ation regarding conduct of the petitioner being being objectionable during that period period. The petitioner was on bail from February 1 ruary 12, 2022 till October 24, 2023, w , which concession he did not misuse. 10. Therefore, it is manifest that the ap The the apprehension expressed by the authorities with s with regard to the petitioner’s comm commission of similar offence, if released on paro n parole, is unfounded and without an out any basis. 11. The objective of parole is two fo Th two fold: i.e. rehabilitation of the prisoner and pro nd protection of society. The main p ain purpose of parole is that the petitioner can m can maintain his contact with the soc the society which would facilitate his reformation ation and transform him into a respo responsible citizen at the time of his release, afte e, after completion of his sentence. T nce. The grant of parole is made with the objecti objective to save the prisoner from h rom harmful effects of continuous ent. imprisonment. 12. Accordingly, the refusal by of th Acc of the District Magistrate (DM) Muzaffarnagar, nagar, vide letter dated February 10 ary 10, 2025 (Annexure P-1) in recommending nding the case of petitioner for release release on parole, is unsustainable and deserves to ves to be set-aside. The omission/inact n/inaction on the part of the DM in not responding t nding to the specific enquiry made by de by the Jail Superintendent vide letter dated Mar d March 18, 2025 despite passage of age of almost 09 months directly impinges on the on the statutory rights of the petitioner