[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 December, 2025
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
CRWP-1231-2025
2025 (O&M)
Sr. No.101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-1231
1231-2025 (O&M)
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 20.11.2025
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 01.12.2025
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on 01.12.2025
the website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment Full
is pronounced or whether the full judgment
is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of Not applicable
full judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Ms. Manveen Kahlon,, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Raj, Additional A.G., Punjab
Punjab.
***
LAPITA BANERJI,
BANERJI J.
In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated December
26, 2024 (Annexure P-4),
P ), whereby application of the petitioner for
release on parole, has been dismissed by the Superintendent of Police,
Sub Division, Tarn Taran.
2. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 21 (C) of
The
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short
CRWP-1231-2025
2025 (O&M)
'NDPS') in FIR No.123 dated 15.09.2017 under Sections 22/27
22/27-A/20 of
NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Ludhiana
Ludhiana.
The petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 12 years
ye along with fine.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
application for parole was sent to the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran vide
office letter No.12552 dated September 13,
1 , 2023, by the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib. The same was further forwarded by the
District Magistrate, Tarn Taran to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Tarn Taran vide letter dated 29.09.2023,
29.09.2023 for a verification report.
4. O the basis of the report of the SHO
On SHO, Police Station Jhabal,
Tarn Taran dated December 26, 2024 which was forwarded by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn
Tarn Taran to the Deputy
Commissioner, (DC) Tarn Taran on January 07, 2025, the petitioner's
case for grant of parole was rejected vide letter dated January 20, 2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is in urgent need of parole for repairing his house which is in a
dilapidated condition.
6. T primary reason for rejection of the prayer for parole of
The
the petitioner was that his conduct
conduct was dangerous and that he could
commit a crime during his release on parole. Further
Furthermore, the DC opined
that with the petitioner's release on parole there could be a risk of
disruption in State's security andd maintenance of public order or the
petitioner may indulge
i in the business of selling drugs or could abscond
and therefore the prayer for grant of parole was rejected. The SHO had
CRWP-1231-2025
2025 (O&M)
taken a stand in the report dated December 26, 2024 sent by the SHO to
the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner was lodged in jail in case
FIR No.147 dated November 12, 2018 and had a previous NDPS case
pending against him in FIR No.123
123 dated September 15, 2017 and his
parole case should be declined as he may indulge in similar activity if
released on parole.
par It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the
aforesaid grounds are misconceived.
7. Notice of motion was issued on February 7, 2025. Pursuant
to the issuance of notice of motion, a reply by way of an affidavit of
Kulwinder Singh, Superintendent,
Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib was
filed on March 20, 2025.
8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for
grant of parole was rightly rejected due to the recovery of a heavy
quantity of heroin from the petitioner as the appr
apprehension was well-
founded that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may indulge in the
illegal activity of selling drugs thereby damaging the future of the
children in the society.
9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused
ed the material on record.
10. When the present petition came up for hearing on
11.11.2025 this Court noted that FIR
IR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 registered
against the petitioner under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police
Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran was not reflected in the custody
certificate of the petitioner. Therefore, the State counsel was directed to
CRWP-1231-2025
2025 (O&M)
produce
oduce a copy of FIR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 on the adjourned date of
hearing.
11. W
When the matter came up for hearing on 20.11.2025, a
second
cond status report dated 19.11.2025 was filed by Manjit Singh Tiwana,
Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri
Sri Goindwal Sahib. A perusal of the second
status report would reveal
rev that only one FIR vide No.123 dated
15.09.2017 was registered against the petitioner
petitioner. The second FIR No.147
dated 12.11.2018 which was alleged to have been registered against the
present petitioner and the primary reason of declining parole to the
present petitioner was in fact registered against another prisoner by the
same name of Gurpreet
G et Singh @ Gopi ID No.231639. The serious error
on the basis of which parole was rejected to the petitioner has been
admitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jhabal vide
communication dated November 17, 2025 which is a part of the second
status report.. The factum of mistaken identity was also admitted by the
Superintendent Central Jail.
Superintendent,
12. Upon perusal of the second status report, it appears that a
serious error has been committed primarily due to the negligence of the
Station House Officer, Police Station Jhabal, as the identities of two
prisoners have been mistaken.
13. The petitioner has prayed for parole in FIR No.123 dated
15.09.2017 whereas in column No.3 relating to previous record in the
order
er of rejection, FIR No.123 is mentioned. However, in column No.10
recording the details of the case in which the petitioner sought parole,
FIR No.147 dated 12.11.2018 has erroneously been mentioned.
CRWP-1231-2025
2025 (O&M)
14. On the basis of the fact that the petitioner had allegedly
indulged in two cases under the NDPS Act within approximately a period
of one year, the authorities declined the grant of parole to the peti
petitioner
on the apprehension that he may indulge in similar activity if released.
15. The callous attitude and negligent conduct of the SHO in
forwarding the report was unfortunately accepted by the SSP by putting a
rubber stamp,, without
ithout any application of mind that is expected from a
senior officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. The impugned
order of rejection suffers from perversity and error of facts on the face of
the record.
16. The Superintendent of Police put his rubber stamp on the
report dated December 26, 2024 recommending rejection of petitioner's
prayer without any independent application of mind
mind.
17. The petitioner is a first-time
first time offender. The petitioner has
committed no jail offence during the period of incarceration or during the
period while he was on bail from February 14, 2019 till May 01, 2023
2023.
The
he petitioner did not misuse the concession of bail. Therefore, to the
mind of this Court,
Court the apprehension that the petitioner may abscond or
indulge again in peddling
ddling of drugs is unfounded and without any
reasonable basis.
18. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that it is necessary
for a convict to maintain his contact with the society which would
facilitate his reformation and transform him into a responsible citizen at
the time of his release, after completion of his sentence. The
Therefore, the
CRWP-1231-2025
2025 (O&M)
impugned order dated December 26, 2024 (Annexure P
P-4), rejecting the
case of the petitioner for release on parole is unsustainable and deserve
deserves
to be set aside.
19. In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside and
it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of
six weeks subject to the furnishing of a necessary surety bond to the
satisfaction of the competent authority and on expiry of 6 weeks he shall
surrender to the jail concerned.
20. The petition
petiti is allowed in thee above terms with costs which
are quantified at Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000/ to be borne equally by the SHO, Police
Station Jhabal and the SSP, Tarn Taran who passed the impugned order
dated December 26, 2024
202 rejecting
jecting the petitioner's parole
parole. The costs has
to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh
Chandigarh.
(DEEPAK
DEEPAK SIBAL)
SIBAL (LAPITA
LAPITA BANERJI
BANERJI)
JUDGE JUDGE
December 01,
01 2025
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
