OCTOBER 30, 2025 Dilbag Singh … v. Ve State of Punjab unjab and others
Case Details
CRWP No.5740 o 740 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A AB AND ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP N WP NO.5740 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED VED ON: OCTOBER 14, 2025 DATE OF DECIS ECISION: OCTOBER 30, 2025 Dilbag Singh ….Petitioner Versus Ve State of Punjab unjab and others ….Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP CORAM : HO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI Present : Ms Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. for Mr. S. S. Gill, Senior DAG, Punjab Mr Punjab. LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. In this petition filed under Articles In rticles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the p
Legal Reasoning
the petitioner has challenged the order dated May 16, 2025 (Annexure P- -3), passed by the Deputy puty Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Dis e, District Tarn Taran-respondent No ent No.4, on the basis of police report forward rwarded by Senior Superintendent endent of Police, Tarn Taran- respondent No.5 t No.5, whereby the petitioner’s pray ’s prayer for grant of 8 weeks’ of regular parole role has been dismissed. 2. An FIR No.93 dated 05.09.2017 An .2017 was registered against the petitioner unde under Section 15 of the Narcotic arcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as d to as “the NDPS Act”) at Police Station Chohla hohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran. Th an. The petitioner was convicted SHALINI BHATIA 2025.10.31 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 5 CRWP No.5740 o 740 of 2025 (O&M) under Section ction 15(c) of the NDPS Act and and was sentenced to undergo rigorous impriso mprisonment for a period of 12 years a years along with fine. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lea itioner submits that an application for parole was m was made by the petitioner on Septem September 24, 2024 and the same was kept pendin pending by the authorities which nece h necessitated the filing of CRWP No.4199 of 202 of 2025 before this Court. Vide orde e order dated April 29, 2025, this Court had dire directed respondent No.4 to take take a final decision on the petitioner’s app ’s application for parole within a per a period of two weeks from the date of receipt o ceipt of copy of the order. Thereafter, eafter, the prayer of the petitioner was primarily r arily rejected on the ground that duri during the period the petitioner was enlarged on ged on bail in the present FIR being being No.93/2017, the petitioner allegedly indulg indulged in drug smuggling and anoth d another FIR being No.142 dated December 30, 2 r 30, 2020 under Section 15 B of the of the NDPS Act was registered against him at at Police Station Chohla Sahib, D ahib, District Tarn Taran. It was erroneously opi opined by the authorities that the hat the petitioner was a habitual offender and is is likely to further indulge in th in the business of smuggling of drugs, if release released on bail. Since two FIRs wer were already registered against the petitioner an and there is possibility that the ac accused could abscond during the period of d of his release, the respondent N ent No.4-Deputy Commissioner rejected the pet he petitioner’s prayer for being releas released on parole following the recommendation ndation of respondent No.5-Senior Sup or Superintendent Tarn Taran. 4. Learned counsel appearing on beh Lea on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the the pendency of other criminal ca al case against the petitioner is no ground for reje or rejection of parole. Moreover, due to natural calamity of unprecedented nted flooding, a part of petitioner’s ioner’s house has been severely SHALINI BHATIA 2025.10.31 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 5 CRWP No.5740 o 740 of 2025 (O&M) damaged. The The petitioner’s wife resides with s with his minor children and therefore his pr his presence is genuinely required f uired for repair of his residential house. She also e also refers to the photographs p phs placed on record by her to corroborate her te her submissions. 5. Furthermore, attention of the Cou Fur e Court is drawn to the fact that during trial the al the petitioner was on regular bail r bail from October 10, 2018 till May 12, 2024 2024 and he did not jump bail by il by absconding. Therefore, the apprehension ion that the petitioner may abscon abscond, if granted parole, was completely unfo unfounded. 6. Notice of motion was issued in th No in the main petition on May 29, 2025. Reply dat ly dated August 31, 2025 was filed by iled by the Superintendent, Central
Legal Reasoning
Jail, Sri Goindw oindwal Sahib, on behalf of responde pondents No.1 to 3. Another reply dated August 8, gust 8, 2025 was filed by the Deputy eputy Commissioner on behalf of respondent No. t No.4. Short reply dated August 0 gust 08, 2025 was filed by the Deputy Superint uperintendent of Police on behalf of re f of respondents No.5 and 6. 7. Learned counsel for the State subm Lea te submits that the application for the grant of par of parole by the petitioner was right s rightly rejected as the petitioner committed a sec second offence under the NDPS A DPS Act, while on regular bail in the present FIR FIR and there was every possibility ibility that he would indulge in the illegal activities ies of procuring/selling drugs, ther thereby damaging the future of the children, if r en, if released on parole. 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. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.10.31 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 5 CRWP No.5740 o 740 of 2025 (O&M) 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 October 1 ober 10, 2018 to May 12, 2024. It . It is true that while on bail, another FIR be IR being No.142/2020 was registe registered against him regarding recovery of 5 k of 5 kgs poppy husk. The petitione titioner was incarcerated for one month as an u an undertrial in that criminal case l case and has been released on regular bail with within one month. 10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Co A is Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab njab in CRWP-5395 of 2023 has has held that pendency of other criminal cases s against a prisoner/accused is n is no ground for declining the parole/ furlough rlough to him, relying on the decision cision in Manga @ Manga Singh v. State of Punj Punjab and others in CRWP No.459 .4593 of 2020 11. From the facts of the case, it is ma Fro t is manifest that the apprehension expressed by th by the authorities with regard to th to the petitioner’s absconding if released on par n parole, is unfounded and without ithout any basis. The second FIR which has bee s been registered against the petiti petitioner and is pending trial, pertains to con to conscious possession of 5 kgs o kgs of poppy husk, commercial quantity being 5 eing 50 kgs and in that case the petitio petitioner has already been able to secure regular b ular bail. 12. 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. The grant of parole is made SHALINI BHATIA 2025.10.31 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 5 CRWP No.5740 o 740 of 2025 (O&M) with the objecti objective to save the prisoner from ha rom harmful effects of continuous ent. imprisonment. 13. Accordingly, the impugned ord Acc d order dated May 16, 2025 (Annexure P-3 3) rejecting the case of petition etitioner for release on parole is unsustainable an able and deserves to be set-aside. 14. Consequently, the petition is allo Con is allowed keeping in mind the objectives for gr for grant of parole and the reason tha on that his residential house is in a dilapidated con d condition and immediate repairs a airs are necessary for making it habitable. Accor ccordingly, the impugned order date er dated May 16, 2025 (Annexure P-3) is set aside t aside. The petitioner shall be release released on parole for a period of six weeks, subje , subject to furnishing of necessary sur ary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the compete mpetent authority and on the expi e expiry of six weeks; he shall surrender to the to the jail concerned. (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE OCTOBER 30 Shalini 30, 2025 Whether Speaki Whether reporta Speaking/reasoned: reportable: Ye Yes/No Yes/No Ye SHALINI BHATIA 2025.10.31 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5