Satinderjit Singh Alias Mintu Vs State of Punjab and Others

This is a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure P-2) vide which the application for the grant of parole moved by the petitioner was rejected.

¶15

The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment

¶16

of conviction dated 19.1.2022 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment in the following terms:-

¶17

Under Section	Sentence
302, 34 IPC	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years.
3 of TADA Act	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

¶18

YAG DUTT 2026.07.08 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶19

CRWP No.2056 of 2026 -2-

¶20

27 of the Arms Act To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year.

¶21

An application for the grant of parole was moved by the petitioner for visiting his family and for domestic work. The said application was rejected vide the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 leading to the filing of the present petition.

¶22

The petition has been opposed by way of a reply. It has been averred that the petitioner is a person of criminal nature and if he is released on parole, he is not likely to come back. Six other cases are stated to be registered against him.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parole had been sought with a view to get his daughter admitted in a suitable course after her 12^th examination. He further submits that the application has erroneously been rejected.

¶24

Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶25

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

Keeping in view the offence for the commission for which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the manner referred to in the preceding paragraph and the other criminal cases pending against him, this Court does not find any illegality in the rejection of his prayer for the grant of parole.

¶27

YAG DUTT 2026.07.08 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

CRWP No.2056 of 2026 -3-

¶29

No doubt, the petitioner was earlier granted parole by the State authorities after a direction having been issued by a coordinate Bench to decide his application for parole. However, the same would not make much of a difference as now the authorities, in their wisdom, have declined the grant of parole expressing apprehension about return of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no irregularity much less illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

That being so, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 06, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt

¶32

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶33

YAG DUTT 2026.07.08 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Satinderjit Singh Alias Mintu v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satinderjit Singh Alias Mintu v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simranjeet Singh Alias Simranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Navpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sarabjit Singh Alias Lovepreet Alias Laksman Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Komal Vs State of Haryana