Case at a Glance
A prisoner serving a 10-year sentence under the NDPS Act applied for parole for the first time, to look after his family and repair his house, with the support of his Gram Panchayat. The District Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib rejected it on the police view that he was a habitual offender who might abscond or return to drug peddling. Justice Sumeet Goel held that involvement in other criminal cases cannot by itself justify refusing parole, and that a bare apprehension without objective material does not meet the test in Section 6(2) of the Punjab temporary-release law. The Court set aside the refusal and ordered eight weeks’ parole on bonds and strict conditions.
The petitioner was convicted under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by a Sessions Judge on 18 December 2025 and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000. His appeal was admitted on 27 January 2026. According to his counsel he had already undergone more than three years in custody. He applied, through proper channel and for the first time, for parole to look after his family and repair his house; the Gram Panchayat gave a no-objection.
By an order dated 28 August 2026, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib rejected the request, relying on the report of the Superintendent of Police. In its replies of 21 and 31 October 2026, the State said he was a habitual offender involved in other FIRs who might abscond or resume drug peddling if released. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS, pointing to his satisfactory jail conduct, the absence of any adverse entry, and the fact that the order merely repeated the police report.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a District Magistrate refuse parole to a convict merely because other criminal cases are pending against him and the police fear that he may abscond or re-offend?
Antecedents Are Relevant, but Not Decisive
Justice Sumeet Goel examined Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Under Section 6(2), temporary release can be refused only if the State Government, or the officer authorised by it, is satisfied on the District Magistrate’s report that the release “is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order”. That is the statutory embargo, and the reasons in the impugned order had to be tested against it.
The Court held that “mere involvement of an accused in other criminal case(s), by itself, cannot constitute a sufficient ground to deny parole”. Antecedents are relevant, but not decisive. The fear that the petitioner would abscond or return to drug peddling was not backed by any “specific, cogent or tangible material”, and “a mere apprehension, unsupported by any objective material or specific circumstance” could not satisfy Section 6(2). The Court also noted that this was the petitioner’s first request and there was no history of misuse of parole. The concern about his antecedents, it said, “can be adequately safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions while granting parole.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Pendency of other criminal cases is relevant but cannot, by itself, be a sufficient ground to deny parole.
- An apprehension that the convict may abscond or re-offend must rest on specific, objective material; a bare apprehension does not meet the standard of Section 6(2) of the 1962 Act (danger to the security of the State or public order).
- A first request for parole, with no history of misuse, deserves weight; antecedents can be addressed by stringent conditions rather than outright refusal.
- The DM’s order of 28 August 2026 was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be released on eight weeks’ parole on furnishing bonds and surety, with conditions to secure his surrender; any breach can be dealt with in accordance with law.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Parole refusals in Punjab and Haryana are often based almost entirely on police reports listing other FIRs. This ruling insists on the statutory test and on objective material.
- It reinforces that parole serves reformation and family ties, and that risks can usually be managed through conditions.
- For NDPS convicts serving long sentences, it shows that the seriousness of the offence alone does not shut the door on temporary release.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Prisoners and Families
- A first parole request supported by the Gram Panchayat and good jail conduct carries weight.
- If parole is refused only because of other pending cases, the refusal can be challenged in the High Court.
- Expect conditions such as bonds, sureties and a surrender certificate; breaching them can lead to action.
For Counsel
- Test the refusal against the precise wording of Section 6(2) of the 1962 Act: security of the State or public order.
- Point out where the DM has merely adopted the police report without recording independent satisfaction.
- Offer stringent conditions in the petition itself to answer concerns about antecedents.
Key Takeaways
- Other pending cases alone are not a ground to deny parole.
- Fear of absconding or re-offending must be backed by specific, objective material.
- Section 6(2) bars release only where it is likely to endanger State security or public order.
- DM’s refusal set aside; eight weeks’ parole granted on bonds, surety and conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can parole be refused because the prisoner has other FIRs?
Not on that ground alone. The High Court held that involvement in other cases is relevant but cannot by itself be a sufficient ground to deny parole.
What is the legal test for refusing parole under the Punjab law?
Under Section 6(2) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, release can be refused if the State Government or its authorised officer is satisfied, on the District Magistrate’s report, that release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order.
What conditions were imposed?
The petitioner must furnish bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the releasing court or Duty Magistrate, which must impose conditions to secure his surrender, record the release and surrender dates, and obtain a surrender certificate; the State counsel must report his surrender to the High Court.
Conclusion
The judgment draws a clear line between a prisoner’s past and a real, demonstrable risk. Without concrete material showing danger to public order, a first-time parole request from a convict with good jail conduct could not be turned down on the strength of other pending cases and general fears.
Practical takeaway: When parole is refused on antecedents alone, challenge the order for not meeting Section 6(2) and offer strict conditions; the High Court is willing to grant release on that basis.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com