Shalinder Shinda Shalinder Shinda v. State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others
Case Details
CRWP-12260 12260-2024 (O&M) Sr. No.250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRWP-12260 12260-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.05.2025 Date of Decision : Shalinder Shinda Shalinder Shinda …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others …Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr.Yashpal Thakur, Advocate, Mr.Yashpal Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. LAPITA BANERJI, J. LAPITA BANERJI *** under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution In this petition of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated October 09, 2024 of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated October 09, 2024 of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated October 09, 2024 (Annexure P-2), whereby application 2), whereby application of the petitioner for release on of the petitioner for release on parole, has been dismissed. has been dismissed. 2. or the petitioner submits that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Learned counsel f has been convicted under Sections 18,20,25,29 has been convicted under Section 18,20,25,29 of NDPS Act in FIR No.05 dated 17.10.2019 registered at Police Station SSOC, Phase-1, SAS Nagar dated 17.10.2019 registered at Police Station SSOC dated 17.10.2019 registered at Police Station SSOC Mohali. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Mohali. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmen Mohali. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmen 12 years along with fine. a period of 12 years along with fine. 3. pplication for parole was made by the applicant and was The application for parole was made by the applicant and was The a forwarded on July 26, 2024 by the Superintendent forwarded on 2024 by the Superintendent, District Jail Nabha to the District Magistrate, Chandigarh. The enior Superintendent of Police, Magistrate, Chandigarh. The Senior Superintendent of Police, UT, Chandigarh rejected the said application vide order dated October 09, UT, Chandigarh rejected the said application vide order dated October 09, UT, Chandigarh rejected the said application vide order dated October 09, 2) without any cogent reasons. 2024 (Annexure P-2) without any cogent reasons. 2024 (Annexure P 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has four children and he has not met his family for a long time. petitioner has four children and he has not met his family petitioner has four children and he has not met his family VANDANA 2025.05.12 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 3 CRWP-12260 12260-2024 (O&M) Petitioner’s daughter is of marriageable age and has undergone kidney Petitioner’s daughter is of marriageable age and has undergone kidney Petitioner’s daughter is of marriageable age and has undergone kidney transplant in 2022. During the period he was released on interim bail, transplant in 2022. During the period he was released on interim bail, the petitioner had never misused such concession. The apprehension of petitioner had never misused such concession. The apprehension of petitioner had never misused such concession. The apprehension of commission of another offence cannot be a ground for rejecting the commission of another offence cannot be a commission of another offence cannot be a petitioner’s prayer for parole under Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct petitioner’s prayer for parole under Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct petitioner’s prayer for parole under Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Additionally, the jail authorities Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Additionally, the jail authorities Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. have also recommended the petitioner’s temporary release on parole due to have also recommended the petitioner’s temporary release on parole due to have also recommended the petitioner’s temporary release on parole due to d behavior in jail. his good behavior in jail. 5. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated December 18, Notice of motion was issued vide order dated December 18, Notice of motion was issued vide order dated December 18, 2024. Reply on behalf of the State was taken on record vide order dated 2024. Reply on behalf of the State was taken on record vide order dated 2024. Reply on behalf of the State was taken on record vide order dated January 10, 2025. January 10, 2025. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for Learned counsel for the State submits that the Learned counsel for the State submits that the the grant of parole by the petitioner was rightly rejected because the grant of paro the petitioner was rightly rejected because his neighbours have objection to him being released and there is an neighbours have objection to him being released and there is an neighbours have objection to him being released and there is an apprehension that if the petitioner is released on parole, he may again apprehension that if the petitioner is released on parole, he may again apprehension that if the petitioner is released on parole, he may again indulge in the illegal activity of selling drugs and damage the future of the indulge in the illegal activity of selling drugs an indulge in the illegal activity of selling drugs an children. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. perused the material on record. 8. he petitioner has committed no jail offence during the period The petitioner has committed no jail offence during the period T of incarceration or during the period of bail from August 23, 2021 to of incarceration or during the period of bail from August 23, 2021 of incarceration or during the period of bail from August 23, 2021 February 20, 2023. The petitioner is on bail in February 20, 2023. T he petitioner is on bail in FIR No.33 dated 09.02.2018 registered under Section 1 of NDPS Act at Police Station under Sections 20 and 61 of NDPS Act at Police Station Naraingarh since March 11, 2024 but due to the pendency of the present Naraingarh since March 11, 2024 but due to the pendency of the present Naraingarh since March 11, 2024 but due to the pendency of the present case is still incarcerated. case is still incarcerated. VANDANA 2025.05.12 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 3 CRWP-12260 12260-2024 (O&M) 9. In the present case, the petitioner was on bail from 23.0 In the pr petitioner was on bail from 23.08.2021 to 20.02.2023 as an undertrial. He had never misu He had never misused his concession during the said period. No jail offence has been committed by the petitioner and the said period. No jail offence has been committed by the petitioner and the said period. No jail offence has been committed by the petitioner and the conduct of the petitioner in the jail has been good. The Senior the conduct of the petitioner in the jail has been g the conduct of the petitioner in the jail has been g Superintendent of Police, UT, Chandigarh has acknowledged Superintendent of Police, UT, Chandigarh has acknowledged that the petitioner is not dangerous to the security of the State or prejudicial of the petitioner is not dangerous to the security of the State or prejudicial of the petitioner is not dangerous to the security of the State or prejudicial of the maintenance of the public order. It is manifest that the apprehension maintenance of the public order. It is manifest that the apprehension maintenance of the public order. It is manifest that the apprehension expressed by the authorities in the impugned order dated expressed by the authori ties in the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) is unfounded and without any basis. 2) is unfounded and without any basis. 10. It is necessary for a convict to maintain his contact with the It is necessary for a convict to maintain his contact with the It is necessary for a convict to maintain his contact with the society which would facilitate his reformation and transform him into a society which would facilitate his reformation and transform him into a society which would facilitate his reformation and transform him into a at the time of his release, after completion of his responsible citizen at the time of his release, after completion of his responsible citizen sentence. The impugned order dated 09.10.2024 sentence. The impugned order dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) rejecting the case of petitioner for release on parole is unsustainable and deserves to the case of petitioner for release on parole is unsustainable and deserves to the case of petitioner for release on parole is unsustainable and deserves to be set-aside. 11.
Decision
Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order Consequently, the petition is allowe Consequently, the petition is allowe dated 09.10.2024 2) is set aside. The petitioner shall be 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. The petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of four weeks, subject to furnishing of released on parole for a period of four weeks, subject to furnishing of released on parole for a period of four weeks, subject to furnishing of necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority and on necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority and on necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority and on f four weeks, he shall surrender to the jail concerned. the expiry of four weeks, he shall surrender to the jail concerned. f four weeks, he shall surrender to the jail concerned. (LAPITA BANERJI) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE (DEEPAK SIBAL) (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE JUDGE 5 May 08, 2025 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : ther speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.05.12 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 3