Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab

¶1

CRWP-535-2025 -1-

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN J AB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH

¶3

235 CRWP-535-2025 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025

¶4

Jarnail Si n gh …Petitioner. v. State of P unjab and others …Respondents.

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY .

¶6

Present: Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocat e for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Senior D AG, Punjab.

¶7

¶8

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

¶9

Challenge in the Criminal W rit Petition is to impugned o r der dated 3.1 . 2025 (Annexure P-6), passed b y respondent No.4, whereby cl a im of petitio n er for grant of parole for ‘Eight weeks’ was declined.

¶10

Relevant facts as emergin g from documents on record be

¶11

noticed h e reinbelow:-

¶12

Petitioner was arrayed as a n accused in case FIR No. 51 d a ted 04.07.20 1 4, under Sections 21/22 of N arcotic Drugs and Psychotr o pic Substanc e s Act, 1985 (in short “NDPS A ct”), registered at Police Sta t ion Fatehgar h Churian. Vide judgment d ated 26.2.2018, petitioner w as convicte d under Sections 21 and 22 of N DPS Act and to undergo rigorous imprison m ent for 10 years each and to p ay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default o f payment of fine to further un d ergo rigorous imprisonment f o r 2 years, in c ase FIR No. 51 dated 4.7.201 4 under Section 21/22 of NDPS A ct, registere d at Police Station Fatehgarh C hurian. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and order of sentence, petitioner filed CRA-S-921-2 0 19 which sta n ds admitted.

¶13

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.26 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRWP-535-2025 -2

¶15

Learned counsel for petitio n er submits that in the impug n ed order, le a rned Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, has referred t o a report re c eived from the Senior Superin t endent of Police, Batala, wher e in, though t h e factum of mother of petitione r , an old aged woman being un w ell was fou n d to be correct, but it was c oncluded that since petitione r is involved in many other criminal cases, i f released on parole, the likelih o od of him committing another offence canno t be ruled out.

¶16

The impugned order, as p er learned counsel, having been passed i n a routine mechanical manner clearly depicts non-applicatio n of mind, fo r the latest instructions issued b y the Director General of Pol i ce, Punjab, C handigarh, vide Circular No. 15 of 2024, on the subject in is s ue, were not taken note of. In this context, l earned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to Section 6 of t h e Punjab Good Conduct Priso n ers (Tempor a ry Release) Act, 1962, wher e in it has been specified that no prisoner s hall be released on parole, if th e authorities concerned feel that his release i s likely to endanger the securi t y of the State or maintenanc e of public or d er.

¶17

In the impugned order, no observation has been made a s to whether r elease of petitioner would res u lt in compromising the securit y of the State and/or maintenance of public o rder. The impugned order, t h us, when rea d carefully is not ‘in sync’ wit h statutory provision. In suppor t of her contention, learned counsel plac e s reliance upon the follo w ing judgment s :-

¶18

“1. 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 275 (SC), Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra;

¶19

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.26 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRWP-535-2025 -3-

¶21

2. 2022 (3) Law Herald 2100, Mohammad Shehbaz v. State of Punjab and others;

¶22

3. 2024(1) RCR (Criminal) 91, Irfan v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others;

¶23

4. 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 133, Manga @ Manga Singh v. State of Punjab and other.”

¶24

Per contra, learned State c o unsel has defended the impug n ed order an d submits that in view of questio n able past antecedents of petiti o ner who has r emained involved in several s e rious criminal cases in the pas t , if extended the concession of parole, ther e is every likelihood of breac h of peace as a lso petitioner committing yet a n other offence. 5. Heard. Documents on record including the latest instructions issued b y the Government of Punjab o n the subject in issue, as also the settled la w , have been perused. 6. As noted above, no speci f ic finding has been returned by concerne d authority as to whether the rel e ase of petitioner on parole is li k ely to endan g er the security of the State/mai n tenance of public order. 7. Resultantly, the impugned o r der dated 3.1.2025 (Annexure P -6) passed b y Additional District Magistrat e , Gurdaspur is quashed. Pre s ent petition i s disposed of with a direction to respondent No.5 to decide the represent a tion already filed by petition e r by passing a specific orde r in accordan c e with the circular/instructions dated 20.7.2024 within a perio d of three we e ks from the date of receipt of ce r tified copy of this order.

¶25

17.11.202 5		(AARADHNA SAWHNEY )
gbs		JUDGE
	Whether Speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶26

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.26 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Alias Kalu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rajat Vs State of Punjab

Arvind Vs State of Haryana

Asha Sharma Vs Shyam Sunder Sharma

Jolly Vs Pandit Ramesh Kumar

The Lehragaga Primary Co-Operative Agriculture Development Bank Limited Vs Manjit Kaur