Kuldeep Singh Sandhu Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Kuldeep Singh Sandhu Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated March 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2) set aside; petitioner to be released on parole for six weeks subject to furnishing necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority, and to surrender to the jail concerned on expiry of six weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated March 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2) of the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran rejecting the petitioner's application for release on parole was sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated March 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2) rejecting the petitioner's case for release on parole is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner committed no jail offence during the period of incarceration and no other offence during his period on regular bail as an under trial from October 10, 2018 to May 12, 2024; he never misused the concession, no jail offence was committed, and his conduct in jail was good.

Key takeaways

In view of the petitioner's clean record and good jail conduct, the apprehension expressed by the authorities in the impugned order dated March 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2) is unfounded and without any basis.ratio¶¶27
It is necessary for a convict to maintain contact with society, which facilitates his reformation and transformation into a responsible citizen by the time of his release after completion of sentence.obiter¶¶31
The petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside; the petitioner is to be released on parole for six weeks subject to furnishing necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority, and is to surrender to the jail concerned on expiry of the six-week period.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Parole — Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India — Petitioner convicted under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act (FIR No.93 dated 05.09.2017, Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran) and sentenced to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine — Application for parole rejected by Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran by order dated March 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2) on grounds that (i) family failed to produce solid documentary evidence of wife's illness (only a doctor's slip from Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran and photocopy of colposcopy report from private Suyog Hospital) and (ii) petitioner, allegedly having links with drug peddlers, might sell drugs or abscond, on SSP Tarn Taran's recommendation — Court found petitioner had committed no jail offence during incarceration and no other offence during his over five-and-a-half-year period on regular bail as an under trial (October 10, 2018 to May 12, 2024), never misused the concession, and his jail conduct was good — Authorities' apprehension held unfounded and without any basis; impugned order held unsustainable and set aside — Petition allowed; petitioner ordered released on parole for six weeks subject to furnishing surety bonds, to surrender to jail on expiry thereof.

CRWP NO. 279 1 OF 2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP NO.2791 OF 2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 02 JULY, 2025

Kuldeep Singh Sandhu

….Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ….Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : M s. Satinder Kaur, Advocate, f o r the petitioner.

M r. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. A G , Punjab.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

CRM-W-389 OF 2025

A llowed, as prayed for.

MAIN CASE

I n this petition filed under Articl e s 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged o r der dated March 03, 2025 (Annexure P- 2 ), whereby application of the p e titioner for release on parole, has been dism i ssed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitio n er submits that FIR No.93 dated 05.09.2 0 17 was registered under Sect i ons 15 and 29/61/85 of the NDPS Act a t Police Station Chohla Sahi b , District Tarn Taran. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 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. 279 1 OF 2025 (O&M)

petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years alon g with fine.

The application for parole wa s made by the applicant on October 21, 2 0 24 and the same was kept pending by the authorities which necessitated t h e filing of CRWP No.1036 of 2 025. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, v i de order dated January 31, 2025, directed the authorities concerned to d ecide the petitioner’s applicatio n for parole within a period of two weeks fr o m the date of receipt of copy of the order. Thereafter, the prayer of the petitioner was primarily reje c ted on the ground that the petitioner had prayed for parole for getting h is wife medically treated but his family me m bers could not produce any s o lid documentary evidence to support his c l aim. Only a doctor’s slip fro m Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran along with p h otocopy of the colposcopy report from a private Suyog Hospital was produced. The other ground for rejection was that the petitioner had links with drug peddlers and o n his release on parole could indulge in th e business of selling drugs an d to abscond. Therefore, the Senior Superi n tendent of Police, Tarn Taran r ecommended rejection of the parole applic a tion of the petitioner and o n the said basis, the Deputy Commissione r , Tarn Taran, rejected the same without any cogent reason or independent a p plication of mind.

Learned counsel for the petition e r further submits that though the wife of pe t itioner is not well but even if t h at ground was not taken into consideration, still the petitioner was eligible f or grant of parole. He further submits that d uring trial the petitioner was o n regular bail for a period of more than fiv e and a half years i.e from October 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. 279 1 OF 2025 (O&M)

The petitioner has never misused such conces s ion and was not implicated in any other cas e . The apprehension of commission of another offence cannot be a ground f o r rejecting the petitioner’s pra y er for parole under Section 3 of the Punjab G ood Conduct Prisoner (Tempo r ary Release) Act, 1962. Such apprehension i n the case of the petitioner was c ompletely misplaced.

N otice of motion was issued vid e order dated March 20, 2025. Short reply d a ted April 20, 2025 of the De p uty Superintendent of Police was taken o n record. The detailed repl y dated June 15, 2025 of Superintende n t, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sa h ib, was taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for the State su b mits that the application for the grant of p arole by the petitioner was rightly rejected as there is an apprehension that if the petitioner is releas e d on parole, he may again indulge in the illegal activity of selling drugs and damage the future of the children.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the m a terial on record. 8. The petitioner has committed no jail offence during the period of incarcerati o n or any other offence during t h e period of bail from October 10, 2018 to M a y 12, 2024, as an under trial. 9. The petitioner had never misus e d his concession during the said period. N o jail offence has been commi t ted by the petitioner and the conduct of th e petitioner in the jail has bee n good. It is manifest that the apprehension expressed by the authorities i n the impugned order dated March 03, 20 2 5 (Annexure P-2) is unfounded 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. 279 1 OF 2025 (O&M)

I t is necessary for a convict to m aintain his contact with the society which would facilitate his reformati o n and transform him into a responsible c i tizen at the time of his rele a se, after completion of his sentence. Th e impugned order dated Marc h 03, 2025 (Annexure P-2) rejecting the c ase of petitioner for release o n parole is unsustainable and deserves to be set-aside.

C onsequently, the petition is all o wed and the impugned order dated March 0 3, 2025 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. The petitioner shall be released on p arole for a period of six we e ks, subject to furnishing of necessary sur e ty bonds to the satisfaction of t h e competent authority and on the expiry of six weeks, he shall surrender to t h e jail concerned.

(DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE

JULY 02, 2025 shalini

Whether Spea k ing/reasoned: Y es/No Whether repo r table: Y es/No

SHALINI BHATIA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 4 of 4