[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh @ Pippal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 February, 2026
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRWP-542-2026
212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-542-2026
JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON
RESERVED PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR
ON ON FULL
29.01.2026 09.02.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 09.02.2026
Kulwant Singh @ Pippal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner (through V.C.).
Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
1. Seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to grant 08 weeks parole
to the petitioner, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition
under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India r/w Section 3(1) (d) of The Punjab Good
Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced to undergo RI for 15 years with fine of Rs.2 lacs under Section 21 (c) of NDPS
Act vide impugned judgment dated 16.01.2025 by Special Court, Fast Track Special
Court, Fazilka. Petitioner moved an application before the Jail Superintendent, Central
Jail, Faridkot for grant of parole for 08 weeks but the same was kept pending before
respondent No.2 for more than one year and thereafter, mother of petitioner approached
this Court vide CRWP No.12368 of 2025 and directions were issued to decide the
application of the petitioner in four weeks. Vide order dated 19.12.2025, the parole of the
petitioner was rejected with the following observations:
"It has been found that due to 06 cases of commercial
quantity under the Arms Act and NDPS Act being
registered against the said prisoner, it is clear that the said
prisoner is a habitual offender and that even after coming
on parole release, he may again indulge in the business of
arms and narcotics, which may pose a threat to the security
of the State and peace and law and order."
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRWP-542-2026
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Facts noted above are not in dispute in the present case.
5. The case of the petitioner for release on parole has been declined on the
ground that he would again start selling drugs.
6. In 'Narinder Singh @ Nindi Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2020 (2) DC
(Narcotics) 253, provisions of 1962 Act were held to be beneficial in nature and were
held to be aimed at reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoners. Parole is granted not
only in an emergent situation but also for purpose of socializing with family members. It
is necessary for a convict to maintain a contact with society which will facilitate his
reformation and absorption in society after his release.
7. Manner in which authorities are required to record satisfaction of danger
to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order is not res integra. In 'Jassa
Singh @ Jassa Vs. State of Punjab' 2016 (5) RCR (Criminal) 522 a Division Bench of
this Court had observed as under:-
"........For reaching satisfaction of danger to the security of the State or
the maintenance of public order there has to be material before the
District Magistrate, for consideration as to whether the release of a
prisoner would be a threat to either or both of them. Parole cannot be
denied and in fact is not liable to be denied on mere generalization by
recording that generally it has been seen that prisoners on release
generally engage themselves in smuggling activities causing danger to
security of the country and contraband are again recovered from them.
This can be ensured by asking the petitioner/prisoner to execute necessary
bonds that while on parole he would maintain good behavior and will not
indulge in any smuggling activities, besides, asking him to furnish heavy
surety."
8. Similarly in "Bansi Lal Versus State of Punjab and others", 2016 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 1017, this Court had also observed as under: -
"15. The term 'Security of the State' out of the expressions of 'law and
order', and 'public order' is considered more grave. It may arise from
within or outside the State. It is generally understood as an act of
aggression from outside, or militant and terrorists operations engineered
by foreign agencies. It can also be effected by passing of classified
information like documents, secrets, maps etc. to foreign countries or
through undesirable foreign links. An act which poses a threat to the State
is to be considered as a threat affecting the security of the State. 'Public
order', however, is synonymous with public safety. It is something more
than mere law and order. Every breach of peace does not lead to public
disorder. Maintenance of public order is intended to prevent grave public
disorder, which is not the same as maintenance of law and order. The
latter is comparatively of a lesser gravity and in fact of local significance.
An act which does not affect the public at large or has no impact on it, is
not to be taken as an act affecting maintenance of public order. The
distinction between law and order and public order is one of degree and
JYOTI SHARMA extent of reach of the act in question on society. In the case of breach of
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRWP-542-2026
law and order it affects individuals directly involved as distinct from the
public at large. This would raise a law and order problem only. The true
test is the potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect some
individuals and local persons while another though of a similar nature
may impact the public at large. An act which disturbs the even tempo of
life of the public at large affects the maintenance of public order. These
aspects are to be considered by the concerned District Magistrates and
competent authorities under Act while deciding to recommend or not to
recommend the temporary release of a prisoner on parole and/or passing
orders for temporary release by the competent authorities under the Act.
The exercise is not to be lightly conducted and the concerned District
Magistrate and/or the competent authorities are to apply their mind on the
basis of inputs received by them for recommending or passing an order as
the case may be for temporary release of prisoners on parole."
9. On consideration of present case, we find that no such satisfaction has
been recorded by the Deputy Commissioner to justify the conclusion noted in the order
dated 19.12.2025. There is no material to indicate that if the petitioner is released, he will
threaten security or/and/or there will be a breach of public peace/order, or the petitioner
may violate parole Rules or may abscond or may commence/commit a cognizable
offence. The apprehension expressed by authorities in order is without any basis and the
result of surmises and conjectures. The grounds for rejection of parole are not well-
founded.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
11. Order dated 19.12.2025 is set-aside. The concerned authorities shall re-
consider his parole without being influenced by the previous order of rejection and if any
material is given that he is likely to abscond or is threat to society, then special reasons be
provided. The application be decided positively not later than 15 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. All pending applications, if any also stands disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
09.02.2026
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
