Jagjeet Singh Alias Kali vs State Of Punjab And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
1
CRWP CRWP-12581 CRWP CRWP 12581 12581-2026 (O&M) 12581 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
122+263 122+263 122+263 122+263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH
CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH
CRWP CRWP-12581 CRWP CRWP 12581 12581-2026 (O&M) 12581 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
Jagjeet Singh alias Kali
….Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
….Respondents
Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 03 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 03 November 03, 2026 November 03 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November November 04 November 04 04, 2026 04 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
CORAM CORAM: : : : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Present:- Present: Present: Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Adia, AAG Punjab.
SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL)
Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS,
2023 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 28.08.2026 (Annexure P-
3) passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sri
Muktsar Sahib, whereby, request of the petitioner for grant of parole has
been denied, and has further sought grant of parole for 08 weeks’.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner had been convicted for commission of an offence punishable
under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years, along with a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo Rigorous
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
2
CRWP CRWP-12581 CRWP CRWP 12581 12581-2026 (O&M) 12581 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
Imprisonment for a period of 06 months, by the concerned Sessions Judge
vide judgment dated 18.12.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted
that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment
and order stands admitted vide order dated 27.01.2026. It has been
submitted that the petitioner has already undergone sentence for a period of
more than 03 years.
2.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that this is the first time
that the petitioner has applied for grant of parole, through proper channel,
to take care of his family and carrying out repairs of his house It has also
been submitted that, in support of the petitioner’s request for parole, the
Panchayat of the village concerned had furnished its no-objection. Learned
counsel has further argued that, after an inordinate and unexplained delay,
the competent authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District
Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide impugned order dated 28.08.2026
(Annexure P-3), rejected the parole application of the petitioner. According
to learned counsel, the impugned order has been passed in a wholly
arbitrary manner, without due appreciation of the material available on
record. It has further been argued that, while rejecting the petitioner’s
parole application, no independent satisfaction has been recorded by the
competent authority and the impugned order is based entirely upon the
report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2.2. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner sought parole to
enable him to meet his family members and repair his house. On the
aforesaid submissions, grant of the petition in hand has been prayed for.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
3
CRWP CRWP-12581 CRWP CRWP 12581 12581-2026 (O&M) 12581 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
3. Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of an
affidavit dated 31.10.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Earlier, reply by way of an affidavit dated 21.10.2026 was filed, which is
taken on record. While raising submissions in tandem with the said short
reply/ reply, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner
by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has
been submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. It has further been argued
that the plea for grant of parole to the petitioner has rightly been rejected,
vide impugned order, on the basis of report submitted by the
Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib, and, thus, there is no need to
interfere with the said impugned order. It has been submitted that the
petitioner is a habitual offender having propensity to repeat such offence(s)
and, in case, the petitioner is granted parole, there is all likelihood that he
may again indulge in sale of narcotic drugs as also abscond during period
of parole. On the basis of aforesaid, dismissal of the petition in hand is
entreated for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
5. Section 6 of the Punjab Prisoners Good Conduct Prisoners
(Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short ‘Act’) reads thus:
“ 6.6.6.6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary
or where prisone or where prisoners are not to be released. or where prisone or where prisone rs are not to be released. rs are not to be released. – Notwithstanding anything rs are not to be released.
contained in sections 3 and 4 –
(1) it shall not necessary to consult the District Magistrate where the
State Government is satisfied that the prisoner maintained good conduct
during the period of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid
sections; and
(2) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if on
the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is
necessary, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
4
CRWP CRWP-12581 CRWP CRWP 12581 12581-2026 (O&M) 12581 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the
State or maintenance of public order. ”
5.1. A plain reading of aforesaid Section 6(2) ibid makes it clear
that the embargo against release of a prisoner is attracted only when the
State Government or the officer authorised by it, upon consideration of the
report of the District Magistrate, where such consultation is necessary, is
satisfied that the release of the prisoner is likely to endanger the security of
the State or the maintenance of public order.
6. Concededly, this is the first occasion on which the petitioner
has sought the concession of parole, inter alia , to meet his family members
and repair his house. A perusal of the impugned order, as also the short
reply/ reply filed by the State from time to time, shows that the petitioner is
involved in other FIR(s). Such antecedents are undoubtedly relevant
consideration(s) while examining a prayer for temporary release but mere
involvement of an accused in other criminal case(s), by itself, cannot
constitute a sufficient ground to deny parole. The statutory requirement
under Section 6(2) of the Act ( ibid ) is that there must be material forming
the basis for a satisfaction that the release of the prisoner is likely to
endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.
7. In the present case, the principal basis for declining parole
appears to be the apprehension of the authorities that the petitioner may
abscond during the period of temporary release and may again indulge in
drug peddling. However, apart from expressing such apprehension, no
specific, cogent or tangible material has been placed on record to
demonstrate that the petitioner’s temporary release is, in fact, likely to pose
a threat to the security of the State or result in disturbance of public order.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
5
CRWP CRWP-12581 CRWP CRWP 12581 12581-2026 (O&M) 12581 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
A mere apprehension, unsupported by any objective material or specific
circumstance indicating a real and proximate likelihood of such danger,
cannot be equated with the statutory satisfaction contemplated under
Section 6(2) of the Act ( ibid ).
8. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had,
on any previous occasion, been released on parole and had misused such
concession or violated any of the conditions imposed upon him. On the
contrary, the petitioner is seeking parole for the first time and it has been
stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that conduct of the petitioner
during incarceration has remained satisfactory and that there is no adverse
entry against him in the jail record. It has also been stated by learned
counsel for the petitioner that request for temporary release has further
been supported by the Gram Panchayat and is founded upon the stated
necessity of meeting his family members and repairing his house.
9. This Court is, nevertheless, conscious of the petitioner’s
criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations levelled against him.
The same can be adequately safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions
while granting parole.
10. In this premise, the present petition is allowed allowed allowed. The impugned allowed
order dated 28.08.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Deputy
Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib is hereby set
aside. The petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of 08 weeks,
subject to his furnishing requisite bonds and surety to the satisfaction of
releasing Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The period of 08 weeks shall
be counted from the date of his release. The releasing Court/Duty
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
6
CRWP CRWP-12581 CRWP CRWP 12581 12581-2026 (O&M) 12581 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
Magistrate concerned shall also impose appropriate conditions to secure the
petitioner’s surrender to custody upon expiry of the parole period and to
ensure that the concession is not misused. The releasing Court/Duty
Magistrate concerned shall also notify the dates of release and surrender of
the petitioner. The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities on
the date and time notified by the releasing Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned. After surrender, the petitioner shall furnish a surrender
certificate. The State counsel shall file a report apprising this Court about
the surrender of the petitioner immediately after expiry of aforesaid parole
period.
11. In case of violation of any of the conditions imposed, the
competent authority shall be at liberty to take action against the petitioner,
in accordance with law.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 03, 2026 November 03 , 2026
November 03 November 03 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment