[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh Alias Saimpy vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 January, 2026
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M) - 1-
223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision:15.01.2026
Balwinder Singh @ Saimpy ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the learned District Magistrate, Patiala, whereby the
application moved by the petitioner for releasing him on 08 weeks on
regular parole has been declined in case FIR No.42 dated 28.06.2021,
under Section 22(c), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station
Thuliwal, District Barnala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner was falsely involved in the FIR captioned above and
ultimately, after holding the trial, the learned Special Court, Barnala
1 of 9
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M) - 2-
convicted the petitioner under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as Act)
and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
15 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- on 06.05.2024. The
petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal i.e. CRA-D-849 of 2024 against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2024,
passed by the Special Court, Barnala before this Court and the same is
lying admitted for consideration. Since the petitioner had always
maintained good conduct in the jail, he applied for regular parole to
him, vide application dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-1). The
petitioner submitted in the application that Jaspreet Kaur, his daughter
has been diagnosed with tuberculosis and there is no male member at
home to look after his daughter. Even, father of the petitioner is
handicapped person and is suffering from old age related diseases.
He further prayed that the petitioner deserves to be released on parole
for a period of 8 weeks, in view of the provisions contained in Section
3(1) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners Temporarily Release Act.
3. On the other hand, a detailed reply has been filed on
behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and the same is taken on record.
Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is a hardened
criminal and as per record, the following 08 criminal cases were
ordered to be registered against him:-
1. FIR No. 463 dated 30.09.2023 U/s 52-A Prison
Act, Police Station City Barnala, Barnala.
2 of 9
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M) - 3-
2. FIR No. 85 dated 05.03.2024 U/s 52-A Prison
Act, Police Station City Barnala, Barnala.
3. FIR No. 175 dated 26.06.2019 U/s 15 Act of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Police
Station Bhawanigarh.
4. FIR No. 87 dated 13.06.2017 U/s 15 NDPS Act,
Police Station Moonak.
5. FIR No. 93 dated 05.07.2020 U/s 22-25-29
NDPS Act, Police Station City Samana, Patiala.
6. FIR No. 361 dated 30.07.2023 52-A Prison Act,
Police Station City Barnala, Barnala.
7. FIR No. 289 dated 27.06.2023 52-A Prison Act,
Police Station City Barnala, Barnala.
8. FIR No. 58 dated 09.05.2020 U/s 15-25-29-61-85
NDPS Act, Police Station City Samana, Patiala.
4. Learned State counsel further submits that the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patiala had prepared a detailed report
(Annexure R-2/T) and as per the said report, the petitioner has been
found to be a smuggler of drugs and it was observed that he could
even smuggled drugs during his parole period and parole may not be
granted. Learned State counsel further submits that even during his
custody, the conduct of the petitioner was not good and three cases
under Section 52-A of Prisons Act were also ordered to be registered
3 of 9
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M) - 4-
against him. Even in case, he has released on parole, he may again
get involved in similar cases.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record carefully.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of
Asfaq Vs Rajasthan and others (2017) 15 SCC 55 had considered the
nature, object, purpose and parameters for grant of parole subject to
which the parole can be granted, by making the following
observations:-
"18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide
for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails.
Main purpose of such provisions is to afford to them an
opportunity to solve their personal and family problems
and to enable them to maintain their links with society.
Even citizens of this country have a vested interest in
preparing offenders for successful re-entry into society.
Those who leave prison without strong networks of
support, without employment prospects, without a
fundamental knowledge of the communities to which they
will return, and without resources, stand a significantly
higher chance of failure. When offenders revert to
criminal activity upon release, they frequently do so
because they lack hope of merging into society as
accepted citizens. Furloughs or parole can help prepare
offenders for success.
19. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in
granting parole or furlough, ingrained in the
reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public
4 of 9
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M) - 5-
interest has also to be kept in mind while deciding as to
whether in a particular case parole or furlough is to be
granted or not. This public interest also demands that
those who are habitual offenders and may have the
tendency to commit the crime again after their release on
parole or have the tendency to become threat to the law
and order of the society, should not be released on
parole. This aspect takes care of other objectives of
sentencing, namely, deterrence and prevention. This side
of the coin is the experience that great number of crimes
are committed by the offenders who have been put back
in the street after conviction. Therefore, while deciding
as to whether a particular prisoner deserves to be
released on parole or not, the aforesaid aspects have
also to be kept in mind. To put it tersely, the authorities
are supposed to address the question as to whether the
convict is such a person who has the tendency to commit
such a crime or he is showing tendency to reform himself
to become a good citizen.
20. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for
grant of furlough or parole. Obviously, society must
isolate those who show patterns of preying upon victims.
Yet administrators ought to encourage those offenders
who demonstrate a commitment to reconcile with society
and whose behaviour shows that aspire to live as law
abiding citizens. Thus, parole program should be used as
a tool to shape such adjustments.
21. To sum up, in introducing penal reforms, the State
that runs the administration on behalf of the society and
for the benefit of the society at large cannot be
unmindful of safeguarding the legitimate rights of the
5 of 9
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M) - 6-
citizens in regard to their security in the matters of life
and liberty. It is for this reason that in introducing such
reforms, the authorities cannot be oblivious of the
obligation to the society to render it immune from those
who are prone to criminal tendencies and have proved
their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities by
being found guilty (by a Court) of having perpetrated a
criminal act. One of the discernible purposes of
imposing the penalty of imprisonment is to render the
society immune from the criminal for a specified period.
It is, therefore, understandable that while meting out
humane treatment to the convicts, care has to be taken to
ensure that kindness to the convicts does not result in
cruelty to the society. Naturally enough, the authorities
would be anxious to ensure that the convict who is
released on furlough does not seize the opportunity to
commit another crime when he is at large for the time-
being under the furlough leave granted to him by way of
a measure of penal reform.
22. Another vital aspect that needs to be discussed is as
to whether there can be any presumption that a person
who is convicted of serious or heinous crime is to be,
ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal. Hardened
criminal would be a person for whom it has become a
habit or way of life and such a person would necessarily
tend to commit crimes again and again. Obviously, if a
person has committed a serious offence for which he is
convicted, but at the same time it is also found that it is
the only crime he has committed, he cannot be
categorized as a hardened criminal. In his case
consideration should be as to whether he is showing the
6 of 9
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M) - 7-
signs to reform himself and become a good citizen or
there are circumstances which would indicate that he has
a tendency to commit the crime again or that he would
be a threat to the society. Mere nature of the offence
committed by him should not be a factor to deny the
parole outrightly. Wherever a person convicted has
suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted
temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of offence
for which he was sentenced. We may hasten to put a
rider here, viz. in those cases where a person has been
convicted for committing a serious office, the competent
authority, while examining such cases, can be well
advised to have stricter standards in mind while judging
their cases on the parameters of god conduct, habitual
offender or while judging whether he could be
considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public
peace and tranquility etc.
23. There can be no cavil in saying that a society that
believes in the worth of the individuals can have the
quality of its belief judged, at least in part, by the quality
of its prisons and services and recourse made available
to the prisoners. Being in a civilized society organized
with law and a system as such, it is essential to ensure
for every citizen a reasonably dignified life. If a person
commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing
a crime, he ceases to be a human being and that he can
be deprived of those aspects of life which constitute
human dignity. For a prisoner all fundamental rights are
an enforceable reality, though restricted by the fact of
imprisonment. {See - Sunil Batra (II) v. State (UT of
Delhi) (1980) 3 SCC 488, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
7 of 9
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M) - 8-
India (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Charles Sobraj v.
Superintendent Central Jai, Tihar, New Delhi, (1978) 4
SCC 104.
7. From the above referred submissions, it is apparent that
undoubtedly, the Courts must adopt a humanistic approach, while
granting the concession of parole to the prisoners, so that they may
take care of their personal as well as family problems and maintain
the relations/links with the family members and the society at large.
However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner is a
hardened criminal and as per the reply filed by the State of Punjab, he
was found involved in four other cases under various provisions of
NDPS Act. Apart from that, even during his stay in jail, four FIRs
have been ordered to be registered against him under Section 52-A of
the Prisons Act. Thus, even now, the petitioner has not reformed
himself and has committed crime, while he was lodged in jail also.
Apart from that, we find substance in the submissions made by
learned State counsel that while on parole also, the petitioner may get
in touch with other smugglers and may abscond also and may get
involved in other similar cases. Consequently, it would not be
appropriate to release the petitioner on parole at the stage, when he
has been recently convicted by the trial Court.
8. In view of the above, we find no ground to allow the
instant petition and the same is, accordingly, ordered to be dismissed.
8 of 9
CRWP-4586-2025 (O&M) - 9-
9. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
JUDGE
(H.S.GREWAL)
JUDGE
15.01.2026
Hemlata
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
