[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daksh Arora vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 December, 2025
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
CRWP No.4203 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND ARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP NO.
NO.4203 OF 2025 (O&M)
Daksh Arora ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 09.12.2025
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.12.2025
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 19.12.2025
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Randeep Singh Waraich (Rana)
(Rana), Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. AG,, Punjab.
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has challenged the refusal to recommend the
petitioner'ss release on parole by the District Magistrate, Muza
Muzaffarnagar,
vide letter dated February 10, 2025 (Annexure P
P-1) relying upon the report
submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaf
Muzaffarnagar.
1 of 5
2. FIR No.32
No. dated 01.03.2021 was registered against the
petitioner under Sections
Section 22, 25 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS
Act") at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana (Rural)
(Rural). The petitioner was
convicted under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 116 years along with fine.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had applied for parole way back in 2024. The Superintendent, Central Jail,
Ludhiana, initiated his case and sent it for veri
verification to the District
Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, vide letter No.4562 dated
18.06.2024. The District Magistrate refused to recommend the petitioner's
case for parole relying on the erroneous report given by the Senior
Superintendent of Police,
Police, Muzaffarnagar, U.P who opined that if released
on parole, the petitioner could again commit a crime under the NDPS Act
with motive of earning undue profit for his personal benefit which could
affect the people in the neighbourhood.
4. Furthermore, without any factual basis, the Senior
Superintendent of Police opined that wrong people could gather nea
near the
petitioner and therefore, commission of any unlawful activity by the
petitioner could not be ruled out. The District Magistrate was again written
to by the Additional Director General of Police (Prisons), Punjab which was
received by him on March 18, 2025, wherein specific reasons were sought
for either recommending or not recommending the grant of parole to the
petitioner within ten days. Thereafter,
Thereafter, no response was received from the
office of District Magistrate. Such inordinate delay to consider petitioner's
2 of 5
prayer for grant of parole is against the letter and spirit of the Punjab Good
Conduct Prisoners (Temporary) Release Act, 1962.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
additionally submits that the petitioner could commit some other offence in
future was no valid ground for rejection of the parole. Moreover, as the
petitioner's wife is suffering from ill health and his presence is genuinely
required to look after her,
her, the petitioner's case should be considered
sympathetically The
sympathetically. he attention of the Court is drawn to the fact that during
trial period, the petitioner was on regular bail from February 12, 2022 till
October 24,
4, 2023 and neither did he jump the bail by absconding nor did he
misuse such concession,
concession in any other way. Therefore, the apprehension that
the petitioner could indulge in commission of similar criminal offences was
completely unfounded.
6. Notice of motion
mo in the present writ petition was issued on
April 29,, 2025. Reply dated May 26,, 2025 was filed by the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Ludhiana.
Ludhiana
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for
the grant of parole by the petitioner was rightly not recommended as there
was a genuine apprehension by the authorities that he might commit a
similar offence, thereby damaging the future of tthe people, if released on
parole. He also submits that a specific recommendation/rejection from the
District Magistrate is still awaited pursuant to the letter dated March 18,
2025 sent by the Jail Superintendent.
3 of 5
8. This Court has heard learned counsel ffor the parties and
perused the material on record including all the replies/reports filed by the
State.
9. The petitioner has committed no jail offence during the period
of incarceration and there is no allegation regarding conduct of the
petitioner being objectionable during that period. The petitioner was on bail
from February 12, 2022 till October 24, 2023,
2023, which concession he did not
misuse.
10. Therefore, it is manifest that the apprehension expressed by the
Therefore,
authorities with regard to the petitioner's
petitioner commission of similar offence, if
released on parole, is unfounded and without any basis.
11. The objective of parole is two fold: i.e. rehabilitation of the
prisoner and protection of society. The main purpose of parole is that the
petitioner can maintain
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 grant of parole is made
with the objective to save the prisoner from hharmful effects of continuous
imprisonment.
12. Accordingly, the refusal by of the District Magistrate (DM)
Muzaffarnagar, vide letter dated February 10, 2025 (Annexure P
P-1) in
recommending the case of petitioner for release on parole
parole, is unsustainable
and deserves to be set-aside.
set aside. The omission/inaction on the part of the DM in
not responding to the specific enquiry made by the Jail Superintendent vide
letter dated March 18, 2025 despite passage of almost 09 months directly
impinges on the statutory rights of the petitioner. It is trite law that an act of
4 of 5
omission/inaction on the part of the authority is amenable to the writ
jurisdiction. A beneficial reference can be made to the judgment of
Supreme Court in "Public
"Public Services Tribunal, Bar Association v. State of
another (2003) 4 SCC 104.
U.P and another"
13. Consequently, the petition is allowed keeping in mind the
objectives for grant of parole and also the reason that his wife is unwell and
needs his care and attention. Since no final order by the Superintende
Superintendent of
Police, Muzaffarnagar, U.P has yet been passed as the recommendation
from the District Magistrate is still awaited, this Court has no other option
but to set-aside
aside the recommendation of the District Magistrate dated
February 10, 2025 as the same is without any factual or legal basis
basis. The
recommendation sought for vide letter dated March 18, 2025 has not seen
the light of the day and such an inaction/omission on the part of District
Magistrate is against the true letter and spirit of the Punjab Good C
Conduct
Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Accordingly, it is ordered that
the petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of six weeks, subject
to furnishing of necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent
authority and on the expiry of six weeks he shall surrender to the jail
concerned.
(DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE JUDGE
DECEMBER 18, 2025
Shalini
Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
