Maan Singh Vs National Investigation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Maan Singh Vs National Investigation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; order (Annexure P-2) set aside; concerned Superintendent of Police and respondent No.3-District Magistrate directed to take a fresh decision on the petitioner's plea (parole for four weeks as prayed), preferably within one month from receipt of the order; order to be communicated to the petitioner without delay enabling legal recourse; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order (Annexure P2) rejecting the petitioner's parole — passed by the District Magistrate solely on the basis of reproduction of the report of the concerned authority, without any reasoning — was sustainable.

Court's answer

The order (Annexure P2) passed by the District Magistrate contains no reasoning, the petitioner's prayer having been turned down only on the basis of reproduction of the report of the concerned authority.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is allowed and the order (Annexure P-2) is set aside.

Key takeaways

The concerned Superintendent of Police as well as respondent No.3-District Magistrate (identified in the preceding paragraph) are to take a fresh decision on the plea of the petitioner, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of this order.ratio¶22
The order so passed is to be communicated to the petitioner without any delay.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Anoop Chitkara, J., oral; Sukhvinder Kaur, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 challenging refusal of parole. The Court found that the District Magistrate's order (Annexure P-2) turning down the parole prayer — of a petitioner who, per counsel, had been incarcerated for nine years and, per NIA/State counsel, faced cases including UAPA — was passed only on the basis of reproduction of the report of the concerned authority, with no reasoning. The order was set aside; the concerned Superintendent of Police and respondent No.3-District Magistrate were directed to take a fresh decision on the plea (parole for four weeks as prayed) preferably within one month from receipt of the order; the order is to be communicated to the petitioner without delay enabling legal recourse; pending applications stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

253 CRWP No.8242 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.01.2026

Maan Singh ...Petitioner

Versus

National Investigation Agency and Ors. ...Respondents

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

Present: None for the appellant.

Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-NIA.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has come before this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 3(1) (c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, for quashing of impugned order (Annexure P2) or to grant parole to the petitioner for four weeks.

2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is behind the bars from the last nine years and his parole was rejected on filmsy grounds.

3 On the other hand, counsel for the NIA as well as State counsel submit that the petitioner is found involved in number of cases including UAPA, if he is released on parole, he can connect with anti national agencies and as such he is not entitled to any parole.

4 We have perused the order Annexure P2 whereby the prayer of the petitioner was turned down only on the basis of reproduction of the report of the concerned authority. There is no reasoning in the order passed by the District Magistrate.

5 Given above, present petition is allowed and order (Annexure P-2) is set

aside. Concerned Superintendent of Police as well as respondent No.3-District Magistrate

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

CRWP No.8242 of 2025 (O&M)

-2-

to take fresh decision on the plea of the petitioner preferebly within one month from the

date of receipt of this order.

6 Order so passed be communicated to the petitioner without any delay

enabling him to take legal recourse, if required. Pending application(s) if any also stand disposed of.

	(AN	OOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
	(SU	KHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE
20.01.2026
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