CRWP/8395/2025 of BALRAJ SINGH ALIAS BAAJ Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS on 27 July 2026

1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing order dated 08.07.2025 of District Magistrate, Amritsar, rejecting his application for grant of eight weeks parole. Petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the official respondents to grant him 8 weeks parole to enable him to meet his ailing mother, minor daughter and to attend urgent family obligations in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.

2. Petitioner pleaded that he and co-accused were tried in case arising out of FIR No.46 dated 22.05.2023, Police Station Sadar Ropar, District Rupnagar under Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’). The trial culminated in his conviction by learned Judge, Special Court,

Rupnagar under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of ₹1,00,000/- which he was undergoing. Against the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was admitted. His father had expired and his mother was suffering from multiple age-related problems. His wife had abandoned his house leaving his family in vulnerable state. His mother could not travel or visit him in jail on account of her medical ailments and illness. There was nothing adverse against him, yet his application to the jail authorities for 08 weeks’ parole was illegally declined. The refusal of parole was not based on correct facts and parole could not be denied on vague apprehensions or mechanical reasoning.

3. Reply by way of affidavit of Harjot Singh Klair, Superintendent, District Jail Rupnagar (Pb.) has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 4 along with custody certificate dated 21.07.2026. As per reply, parole case of the petitioner was initiated and duly sent to District Magistrate, Amritsar by Superintendent, District Jail, Rupnagar on 17.03.2025. Verification report was sought by District Magistrate from Senior Superintendent of Police, District Amritsar (Rural) on 24.03.2025. The parole case was not recommended by District Magistrate, Amritsar, in view of report of Senior Superintendent of Police, District Amritsar (Rural) as the details provided by the prisoner were not found correct and the prisoner could again indulge in drug selling activity after release on parole. Moreover, his release would pose threat to State security and maintenance of public order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1962) enabled the competent authority to release the prisoner temporarily for any sufficient cause. Petitioner was not involved in any other case nor there was anything adverse against his conduct or behaviour during confinement. Refusal of parole by District Magistrate, Amritsar was mechanical, without any supporting material and valid grounds. The concession could not be denied to the petitioner, who was seeking release for a limited period, to attend to urgent family obligations. Panchayat of the village had also given in writing that there was no apprehension of breach of peace or threat to public order if petitioner was released on parole. District Magistrate, Amritsar failed to point out any cogent reason or ground to disbelieve the Panchayatnama and mechanically declined the prayer for parole, on vague apprehension. Order dated 08.07.2025, thus, deserved to be quashed with a direction to the official respondents to grant 08 weeks’ parole to the petitioner. To support his submissions, learned counsel referred to Khillu Vs. State of Haryana 2009 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 769, Subhash Vs. State of Haryana 2004 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 491 and Satish Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2025 NCPHHC 116666 rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel, submits that petitioner, who was convicted in an NDPS case was not entitled to release on parole solely on the ground of meeting his family members and placed reliance on Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 185 and Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2024 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 495. It was argued that petitioner was rightly refused parole in view of the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, District Amritsar (Rural) considering the serious nature of crime for which he was convicted and the ground on which parole was sought. Prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

6. Petitioner has sought temporary release on parole under Section 3(d) of the Act, 1962. He is convicted in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year. Appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 25.10.2024 is pending. As per custody certificate placed on record, he has undergone total custody of 02 years 03 months and 22 days. Concededly, there is no other case pending against him.

7. Section 3 of the Act, 1962 reads as under:

(1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub- section (2) any prisoner if the State Government is satisfied that- (a) [a member of the prisoner's family has died; or (aa) husband or wife or son or daughter or father or mother or brother or sister or grand-father or grand-mother or grandson or grand-daughter or father-in-law or mother-in-law of the prisoner is seriously ill; or]

(b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or

(c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation 2[on his land or any other land cultivated by him] and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; or

(cc) a lady prisoner is pregnant and is likely to deliver a child; or]

(d) it is desirable so to do for any other sufficient cause. [Explanation.- The expression “sufficient cause” includes-

(1) serious damage to life or property of the member of the family caused by any natural calamity; or

(2) critical condition of any member of the family on account of accident; or

(3) delivery of child by the wife of the prisoner.]

(2) [The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed—

(a) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), fifteen days; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (aa) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of subsection (1), [eight weeks]; and

(c) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (cc) of sub-section (1), one hundred and twenty days (sixty days prior to date of delivery of child and sixty days after the date of delivery of child).] [(2-A)] The total period of temporary release of the prisoner, excluding the release availed of,-

(i) on the death of a family member of the prisoner; or

(ii) by a female prisoner on account of delivery of child, as the case may be, shall not exceed sixteen weeks, during a calendar year and shall be availed of on quarterly basis: Provided that a prisoner, may avail such release for a continuous period of sixteen weeks, during the period falling between the 23rd day of November, 2018 to the 23rd day of November, 2019, as a onetime measure on pro-rata basis, however, subject to the other provisions of the Act: Provided further that any prisoner who is on temporary release for a specified period and wants to surrender before the expiry of his temporary release period, he shall be allowed to do so:] [Provided further that during disasters under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, or epidemics under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, the State Government may, by a special notification published in the Official Gazette, allow temporary release beyond the maximum period of sixteen weeks during a calendar year, and may also waive the condition of temporary release being availed of on quarterly basis.]

(3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.

(4) The State Government may by notification authorise any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein.

8. As would be manifest from communication dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure R-2/T) of District Magistrate, Amritsar (Rural) addressed to Superintendent, District Jail, Rupnagar, parole has been denied for the following reasons: “…..The details provided in the Panchayatnama regarding the prisoner's parole leave are not found to be correct. The convict may again indulge in drug selling activity after being released on parole. The parole release of the convict poses a threat to State Security and Maintenance of Public Order. Therefore, the parole of this convict is not recommended. Therefore, the 08 weeks’ parole release case of convict no. 7100/C Balraj Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, resident of Baba Bakala Sahib, Police Station Khilchian, District Amritsar is rejected and police report submitted by the Senior Superintefident of Police, Amritsar (Rural) is being sent herewith with direction that the concerned convict be informed regarding the same…..”

9. In “Harpartap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others”, CRWP- 2186-2022, Date of decision: 07.04.2022, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a case relating to temporary release of a prisoner to meet his family members and settle household affairs, held that apprehension of the State that release of the petitioner on parole could be dangerous to the State security and maintenance of public order cannot be made ground to reject the parole when Section 3(1)(d) of the Act permitted temporary release of petitioner for any other sufficient cause. Order of the District Magistrate,

Amritsar was set aside. That too was a case where prisoner was convicted in a case under the NDPS Act and has no other criminal antecedents. Similarly, in “Mandeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others”, CRWP-4082-2022, Date of decision: 24.04.2023, the Court observed as under: “11. It is settled principle that release on parole is part of the reformative process. The Division Bench in Arun Kumar v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2011 (2) AICLR 361 held that release of convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. The provisions of the Act have been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Sufficient material should be available and there should be solid reasons for declining temporary release on parole.

12. Similarly, in Ram Chander v. State of Punjab and others, 2017 (3) RCR (Criminal) 340, it was held that in the absence of any material before the District Magistrate, denial of benefit of parole as such would not be justified which was being prayed for, for meeting the family members.

13. Keeping in view, the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2012. He has not committed any major jail offence within last 5 years. He has not been able to meet his family. It is duty of the State to secure the complainant and protect the life and liberty of complainant.

14. Thus, the present petition is allowed.”

10. In “Ravinder alias Susa Vs. State of Haryana and Others”, CRM-M-7624-2022, Date of Decision: 18.05.2023, as well, a Division Bench of this Court observed as under: “9. It has been held in a plethora of cases that temporary release of a prisoner on parole or furlough can be denied only if such release is likely to endanger security of State or maintenance of public order. For arriving at such satisfaction that danger to security of State or maintenance of public order is indeed present, there has to be sufficient material before the District Magistrate for consideration. In the present case, there are general allegations that petitioner may abscond or get involved in other criminal case, if released on parole.

However, no material has been adverted to in the impugned order or the reply to the petition or by learned State counsel during the course of arguments to justify such apprehension. Insofar as other cases against the petitioner are concerned, it is not denied that in almost all of them, petitioner has been acquitted. Furthermore, no provision of 2022 Act has been cited which can be a bar/impediment for release of the petitioner on parole.”

11. In “Mahammad Shehbaz Vs. State of Punjab”, CRWP-3196- 2022, Date of decision: 05.07.2022, a Division Bench of this Court, was dealing with a similar matter where 06 weeks’ parole under the Act, 1962, was denied on report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur that release of petitioner on parole could disrupt law and order in city and endanger country’s security. The Court held that there was nothing discussed, in what circumstances the petitioner had been convicted, what was his crime and the manner in which he had committed the same to show that his release on parole after 04 years of conviction, endangered the security of the nation.

12. Release on parole is a part of the prison reform policy. Provisions of the Act, 1962 have been enacted as measure of rehabilitation and reformation with the object of enabling prisoners to have family ties even without a specific emergency. The order of District Magistrate, Amritsar, refusing parole does not appear to be based on cogent grounds. What details mentioned in the Panchayatnama regarding prisoner’s parole have been found incorrect has not been specified anywhere nor there is any material to support the observation that release of petitioner would pose threat to the State security and maintenance of public order. Only on account of the fact that petitioner is convicted in an NDPS case, there cannot be a presumption that he would engage in drug-selling activity. It is not the case that behaviour and conduct of petitioner during his confinement in prison has not been up to mark.

Admittedly, petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. He has never been released on parole earlier. He has an old mother, who is suffering from various ailments and his case needs to be dealt with some compassion to ensure his effective return to civil society, in a dignified and purposeful manner. Petitioner’s plea of parole could not be declined on vague apprehension expressed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Rural), without indicating what details were found incorrect. The reasons recorded by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, while refusing parole suffer from lack of transparency and irrationality and the order under challenge deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.

13. Accordingly, impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Amritsar is set aside and quashed. The matter shall be reconsidered by District Magistrate, Amritsar within a period of one month, considering the observations in this order. Necessary orders shall thereafter be passed, in accordance with law.

14. The petition stands disposed of on the terms above.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 27.07.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No