Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Rana Through Wife Tamanna Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144900
CRWP-10621-2024 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
103 CRWP-10621-2024
Date of decision: 6th November, 2024
Neeraj Rana through wife Tamanna Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Naresh Chander, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for extension of parole for eight weeks in FIR No. 69
dated 26.11.2016 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station
Rawalpindi, District Kapurthala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was held guilty and convicted for a period of ten years and to pay
a fine of Rs. 1 lakh for commission of offence under Section 21 (c) of NDPS
Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay fine of Rs. 2000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section
25 of Arms Act. An appeal as filed by the petitioner against the said
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144900
CRWP-10621-2024 -
judgment is pending before this Court. Vide order dated 28.08.2024 passed
by this Court in CRWP-1760-2024, the petitioner was released on parole on
25.09.2024 for a period of six weeks. However, on 27.10.2024, the petitioner
was going to market on Activa and had met with an accident and therefore,
he was rushed to Shri Ram Raai Ji Hospital, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar. As
per doctor opinion, legs of the petitioners got paralysed and he is not able to
walk and is advised to bed rest for two months. With these broad
submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and
petitioners deserves to be granted extension of parole.
3. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned
State counsel though opposes the prayer for extension of bail but he is not in
a position to dispute the medical condition of the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and have gone through the record carefully.
5. The petitioner was convicted and held guilty for a period of ten
years in case arising out of FIR No. 69. He had filed an appeal against his
conviction before this Court, which is pending. The petitioner was granted
parole for a period of six weeks by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024
and was released on 25.09.2024. He was to surrender on 06.11.2024 but he
has moved petition for grant of extension of parole on the ground that he had
met with an accident during the parole period. The factum of his sustaining
injury in an accident has been formed by the respondent-State. Keeping in
view this fact, the petition is disposed of and the period of parole of the
petitioner is extended for a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144900
CRWP-10621-2024 -
shall surrender back to the jail after expiry of the aforementioned period.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.
7. If the petitioner does not surrender in the concerned jail on the
date fixed, the consequences will follow.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
6th November, 2024
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
