Remanded

Gurwinder Singh Alias Mintu v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Mar 2026CRWP/1442/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order declining the petitioner's parole application. Relying on Division Bench precedents, the court held that mere apprehension of crime recurrence or involvement in other cases is not a valid ground for denial without cogent material affecting State security or public order. The matter was remanded for a de novo decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order declining the petitioner's parole application dated 06.01.2026 was set aside and the matter remitted to the appropriate authority to decide afresh within four weeks.

Gurwinder Singh Alias Mintu Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRWP-1442-2026 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

256

¶4

CRWP-1442-2026 Date of decision: 17.03.2026

¶5

GURWINDER SINGH ALIAS MINTU

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

¶11

Present: M r. P.S. Bhinder, Advocate f o r the petitioner.

¶12

M r. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, P unjab .

¶13

¶14

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

P etitioner has filed this pet i tion under Articles 226 o f Constitution o f India for issuance of a wri t in the nature of certiorari fo r quashing of order dated 06.01.2026, Ann e xure P-2, passed by Distric t Magistrate, P a tiala, vide which, the applicati o n of the petitioner for grant o f parole has be e n declined.

¶16

L earned counsel for the petitio n er inter alia contends that th e petitioner moved an application seeking te m porary release (parole) for a period of 08 w eeks which was rejected in a m echanical manner on the groun d that in case t he petitioner is released on p arole, the petitioner can agai n indulge in the smuggling of psychotropic sub s tances. Learned counsel for th e

¶17

GURPREET 2026.03.18 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶18

CRWP-1442-2026 2

¶19

petitioner fur t her contends that there is no l e gislative mandate to reject th e case of the p e titioner on this ground and furt h er his case is squarely covere d by the judgm e nt passed by the Division Ben c h of this Court in CRWP-5395 - 2023 decided on 06.05.2024 titled as Kulwinder Singh @ Taina vs. State of Punjab and Ors. and Jassa Singh @ Jassa vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 522 and submits th a t Division Bench of this Cour t has already c onsidered the statutory prov i sions and has concluded tha t apprehension of involvement of the convict in other cases cannot be a sol e ground for d enying him the concession o f temporary release. Relevan t paragraph of j udgment Kulwinder Singh @ Taina vs. State of Punjab and

¶20

Ors. is reprod u ced herein below:

¶21

"10. Objectives of parole a re twofold i.e. rehabilitation o f offender and protection of s o ciety. The main purpose of parol e is that prisoner can main t ain continuity together with hi s family, friends and commu n ity and at the same time to sav e prisoner from harmful eff e cts of continuous prisoner life. Parole enables a prisone r to develop a feeling of sel f confidence that there is a li f e beyond prison. It helps prisone r to develop a sense of hope and active interest in his life with a view to rehabilitate the p r isoner. Competent authority ca n always impose sufficient a nd necessary conditions whil e granting parole. Gainful ref e rence at this stage can be made t o the judgment of Coordinate B ench in "Bansi Lal versus State of Punjab & Others", 2016(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1017 , wher e it was observed as under :-

¶22

"11. ..... During inca r ceration of a prisoner in jail afte r his conviction he is e ntitled for temporary release o n parole which though is a concession and not a right. However, in order t o reform a prisoner a periodi c temporary release o n parole for short duration i s necessary. This is a w elfare measure in the interest of a prisoner ..... xx xx xx X X 15. The term 'Sec u rity of the State' out of th e expressions of 'law a nd order', and 'public order' i s considered more gr a ve. It may arise from within o r outside the State. It is generally understood as an act o f aggression from ou t side, or militant and terrorist s operations engineere d by foreign agencies. It can als o be effected by passi n g of classified information lik e documents, secrets, m aps etc. to foreign countries o r through undesirable fo reign links. An act which poses a

¶23

GURPREET 2026.03.18 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶24

CRWP-1442-2026

¶25

¶26

threat to the State i s to be considered as a threa t affecting the securi ty of the State. 'Public order', however, is synony m ous with public safety. It i s something more than m ere law and order. Every breac h of peace does not lea d to public disorder. Maintenanc e of public order is i n tended to prevent grave publi c disorder, which is not the same as maintenance of la w and order. The latt e r is comparatively of a lesse r gravity and in fact o f local significance. An act whic h does not affect the p u blic at large or has no impact o n it, is not to be taken a s an act affecting maintenance o f public order. The dist i nction between law and order an d public order is one o f degree and extent of reach of th e act in question on so c iety. In the case of breach of la w and order it affects individuals directly involved a s distinct from the publ i c at large. This would raise a la w and order problem o n ly. The true test is the potentialit y of the act in ques t ion. One act may affect som e individuals and local p ersons while another though of a similar nature may i m pact the public at large. An ac t which disturbs the e v en tempo of life of the public a t large affects the ma i ntenance of public order. Thes e aspects are to be co n sidered by the concerned Distric t Magistrates and com p etent authorities under Act whil e deciding to recom m end or not to recommend th e temporary release of a prisoner on parole and/o r passing orders for te m porary release by the competen t authorities under th e Act. The exercise is not to b e lightly conducted and the concerned District Magistrat e and/or the competent authorities are to apply their min d on the basis of inputs received by them fo r recommending or pa s sing an order as the case may b e for temporary release of prisoners on parole." 11. A Division Bench of thi s Court in the case of Manga (@ Manga Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, 2020(4 ) R.C.R. (Criminal) 133 spe c ifically held that merely becaus e petitioner was involved in fo ur other cases cannot be a vali d ground by itself to deny rele a se on parole.

¶27

12. As per impugned order dated 10.04.2023 based o n the report of Se n ior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, it is observed that in case petitioner i s released on tempor a ry parole, he can indulge i n smuggling of narcoti c s and he may also abscond durin g parole. On this basis, prayer for parole was rejected b y District Magistrate, Ferozepur by passing impugne d order dated 10.04.2 0 23 (Annexure P-2). Such mer e apprehension is not a valid ground for rejection o f application filed by p etitioner seeking parole. Affidavi t filed by Deputy Su p erintendent of Police, Zira an d impugned order date d 10.04.2023 Annexure P-2 do no t come to the aid of the State justifying denial of parole t o petitioner. Consider a tion of the question whethe r release of petitioner on parole is likely to endange r security of State or m aintenance of public order ha s

¶28

GURPREET 2026.03.18 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶29

CRWP-1442-2026 4

¶30

clearly not been carr i ed out by the competent authority. Cogent material to i n dicate the same rather than mer e registration of variou s cases has to be available."

¶31

N otice of motion.

¶32

M r. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DA G , Punjab, who is present in th e Court, accept s notice on behalf of responde n ts-State and justifies the orde r passed by res p ondent No.2.

¶33

C onsidering the peculiar facts a n d circumstances of the case an d the judgment rendered by Division Bench o f this Court in Kulwinder Singh @Taina vs. State of Punjab and Ors. And Jassa Singh @ Jassa vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 522 (supra) , the impugned orde r dated 06.01.2026, Annexure P-2, passed by District Magistrate, Patiala, i s hereby set asi d e, being unsustainable.

¶34

C onsequently, the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 t o decide it afresh in view of the law discussed a bove, preferably within 4 week s of receiving c o py of this order.

¶35

7. D isposed of accordingly.

¶36

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 17.03.2026 JUDGE

¶37

Gurpreet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/ N o ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶38

GURPREET 2026.03.18 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

Gurwinder Singh Alias Mintu v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurwinder Singh Alias Mintu v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Murshlin Vs State of Haryana

Mohammad Tosif Vs State of Haryana

Gagandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab