Partly allowed¶26

Palwinder Singh Alias Pindi v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2025CRWP/7754/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parole rejection; non-speaking order; Articles 226/227 certiorari writ; District Magistrate Amritsar; 8 weeks parole; Gram Panchayat recommendation; earlier parole CRWP-12104-2022 timely surrender; Section 302 IPC life convict; FIR 83/22.05.2016 PS Sadar Amritsar; habitual offender plea by State; reconsideration with valid reasons; 30-day timeline; Senior Superintendent Central Jail Ferozepur; threat to State security and public order; Punjab and Haryana High Court CRWP-7754-2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur to re-consider the petitioner's parole application within 30 days, to give valid reasons if it is rejected, and to take the Gram Panchayat resolution into consideration; State to communicate the order. ¶26

Palwinder Singh Alias Pindi Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 rejecting the petitioner's 8 weeks parole is a non-speaking order, unsupported by valid justification and passed without considering the Gram Panchayat's recommendation, and therefore bad in law and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

In case the parole application is to be rejected, valid reasons must be given on what basis the authority is assuming that the petitioner shall not surrender back and can cause threat to state security and public order or is likely to misuse his liberty.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of Annexure P-1, the Court found that the petitioner had been granted the benefit of parole by this Court earlier and had surrendered back.

¶25

Key takeaways

The present petition is partly allowed with a direction to the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, to re-consider the parole application of the petitioner.ratio¶26
The application shall be decided within 30 days and the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat shall also be taken into consideration; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court, CRWP-7754-2025, decided 04.12.2025 (Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ.; judgment by Anoop Chitkara, J.). Criminal writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari against rejection order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, dismissing the petitioner's request for 8 weeks parole on the ground that the 'convict can cause threat to the State security and public order'. Petitioner, convicted under Section 302 IPC (FIR No. 83 dated 22.05.2016, PS Sadar Amritsar) and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, with appeal CRA-D-3642020 pending, relied on the Gram Panchayat village Harsha Chhina Subajpur's recommendation, his clean record, good jail conduct, and his earlier parole granted in CRWP-12104-2022 (order dated 23.03.2023) with timely surrender. Held: petition partly allowed; Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur directed to re-consider the parole application within 30 days and, if rejecting it, to record valid reasons for assuming the petitioner would not surrender, would threaten state security/public order or misuse his liberty; Gram Panchayat resolution to be taken into consideration.

¶1

��

¶2

�� ��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP-7754-2025

¶5

PALWINDER SINGH ALIAS PINDI

¶6

. .. PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

¶9

JUDGEMENT	JUDGEMENT	OPERATIVE PART	UPLOADED ON
RESERVED	PRONOUNCED	PRONOUNCED OR
ON	ON	FULL
27.11.2025	04.12.2025	FULL PRONOUNCED	04.12.2025

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶15

Aggrieved by rejection order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Magistrate, Amritsar, whereby request for grant of 8 weeks parole sought by the petitioner was dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari.

¶16

Petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine amounting to Rs.20,000/- in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in trial arising from FIR No. 83 dated 22.05.2016 under Sections 302, 307, 212, 216, 148, 149 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar. Petitioner is undergoing sentence and is presently lodged in District jail, Amritsar. His criminal appeal bearing no. CRA-D-3642020 against the order of conviction and sentence was duly admitted by this Court.

¶17

Petitioner had applied for 8 weeks parole for taking care of his family. The parole was initiated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur. It is a case of petitioner that Gram Panchayat village Harsha Chhina Subajpur, Block Harsha Chhina (Amritsar) had duly recommended his release on parole and has duly reported that there is no danger of disturbing law and order in the village or nearby areas. However, on the report of Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, the District Magistrate, Amritsar has rejected the parole case of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 22.05.2025 on the ground that there is a likelihood of “convict can cause threat to the State security and public order” in the event of release of petitioner on

¶18

parole.

¶19

ANJU RANI parole. 2025.12.04 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶20

Petitioner is challenging impugned order dated 22.05.2025 on the grounds that

¶21

��

¶22

�� ��

¶23

same is non speaking order and not based on valid justification for rejecting the case of the petitioner. It is asserted that Gram Panchayat has already recommended his case, therefore, the conclusion that “convict can cause threat to the State security and public order” without reasons is bad in law. It is argued that the resolution of the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration. It is asserted that petitioner has no previous criminal record. He was on bail, during the trial and was not concerned in any other case. That his conduct during incarceration has been reported to be good and there is no allegation of misconduct while in jail. Further, the petitioner was earlier granted parole vide order dated 23.03.2023 passed in CRWP-12104-2022 and petitioner also surrendered back on time. It is asserted that accused was never involved in any activities, which may cause disturbance to the public peace/order or security. It is asserted that petitioner was falsely involved in present FIR and his appeal is pending and, therefore, the impugned order declining parole is liable to be setaside.

¶24

On the other hand, State counsel submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and there is a long list of the cases as detailed in para No.2 of the reply.

¶25

We have gone through the petition and perusal of Annexure P-1 reflects that petitioner was granted benefit of parole by this Court and he surrendered back.

¶26

Consequently, the present petition is partly allowed with a direction to the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, to re-consider the parole application of the petitioner and in case, it is to be rejected, valid reasons to be given that on what basis they are assuming that petitioner shall not surrender back and can cause threat to state security and public order or likely to misuse his liberty. It is clarified that the application shall be decided within 30 days from today and resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat be also taken into consideration. State to communicate this order to Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶27

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE

¶28

04.12.2025 Anju rani

¶29

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶30

ANJU RANI 2025.12.04 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Palwinder Singh Alias Pindi v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palwinder Singh Alias Pindi v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogender Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana Vs Mukesh Alias Mukhiya and Ors.

Kashmira Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Neha Bagga @ Dolly through Her Father Vs State of Punjab

State U.T Chandigarh Vs Anil Tanwar

Rajinder Kumar and Another Vs State of Punjab