Gagandeep Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Gagandeep Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) rejecting emergency parole set aside; concerned Superintendent of Police to take up the petitioner's application afresh within two weeks and respondent No.2 to pass a reasoned order afresh, to be communicated to the petitioner without delay enabling legal recourse; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose emergency parole was rejected by order dated 14.05.2025 on account of his escape from custody in 2023 (FIR under Section 224 IPC) and the apprehension that he may repeat the offence, should be granted emergency parole and whether the rejection order should be set aside.

Court's answer

Although the petitioner was a fugitive for some time during an earlier parole, keeping in view the two years of custody elapsed since registration of the 2023 FIR under Section 224 IPC, and given the petitioner's undertaking not to repeat the offence (and, if he did, not to apply again for parole for at least two years after surrender/arrest), one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed; the order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) is set aside; the concerned Superintendent of Police shall proceed with the petitioner's application afresh within two weeks and respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order afresh, communicating it to the petitioner without delay enabling him to take legal recourse; pending applications stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CRWP No.5782 of 2025 (O&M)) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by convict Gagandeep Singh @ Sonu against State of Punjab and Ors., seeking certiorari to set aside the order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P2) rejecting his emergency parole. Rejection rested on his escape from custody in 2023 during an earlier parole (FIR under Section 224 IPC) and the apprehension of repetition of offence. The Bench (Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ.) held that, given two years of custody elapsed since the 2023 FIR and the petitioner's undertaking not to repeat the offence, one more opportunity should be granted. Petition allowed; rejection order set aside; Superintendent of Police directed to process the application afresh within two weeks and respondent No.2 to pass a reasoned order, communicated to the petitioner without delay.

�� 

252

CRWP No.5782 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.01.2026

Gagandeep Singh @ Sonu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Ors.

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral)

1 Petitioner has come before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P2) and to direct the respondents to grant emergency parole to the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for which the parole of the petitioner was rejected is that he escaped from the custody in 2023 and FIR against him was registered and another reason the petitioner may repeat the offence.

3 On the other hand counsel for the petitioner submits that if petitioner is released on parole, he undertakes not to repeat the offence and if he does so he shall not apply again for the parole atleast for 2 years after his surrender/arrest.

4 We have gone through the records. No doubt petitioner was fugitive for sometime when he was granted parole but keeping in view the period of the custody of 2 years which elapsed from the date of registration of earlier FIR in 2023 under Section 224 IPC, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner, given the undertaking of the petitioner.

5 Given above, present petition is allowed and order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. Concerned Superintendent of Police shall proceed with the

JYOTI application of the petitioner a fresh within two weeks and the concerned officer i.e. 2026.01.29 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP No.5782 of 2025

-2-

respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order afresh on the same. Order so passed be

communicated to the petitioner without any delay enabling him to take legal recourse, if

requires. Pending application(s) if any also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

	(SUK	HVINDER JUDGE	KAUR)
19.01.2026
jyoti3
	Whether speaking/reasoned?	:	Yes/ No
	Whether reportable?	:	Yes/ No

JYOTI 2026.01.29 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document