The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirms that refusal of parole cannot rest only on generic fears of crime or public disorder unless supported by concrete, case-specific incidents; established precedent is followed, ensuring that future administrative rejections of parole demand evidentiary basis. This ruling holds binding authority for subordinate courts and parole administrations in the State.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRWP/4861/2025 of GURTEJ SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010742092025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding (within jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—Parole under NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether parole may be denied on the mere apprehension of breach of peace or repetition of offence absent specific evidence of such risk? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that parole cannot be rejected merely based on vague apprehensions of future criminal conduct or disruption of public peace. There must be some specific incident or evidence to justify a denial. In the absence of such, refusal on speculative grounds is not sustainable. The principle affirms the requirement of a reasoned, evidence-based administrative process concerning prisoners’ rights to parole. The Court followed and applied its earlier decision in Mehtab v. State of Haryana & Ors (CRWP-2329-2024, decided 03.09.2024), which set out this principle. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Mehtab Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (CRWP-2329-2024, decided 03.09.2024) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Absent any specific, case-related apprehension—noted during prior bail or parole periods—administrative orders refusing parole are arbitrary and cannot stand. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, serving a 10-year sentence under Sections 15/27A NDPS Act, had his parole request denied on the speculative ground that his release could risk peace and might lead to further crime, though he had earlier spent 5.5 years on bail without incident. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court; executive/administrative parole process. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar parole denial cases; may be cited for evidentiary requirements in parole refusals. |
| Follows | Mehtab Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (CRWP-2329-2024, decided 03.09.2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that parole denial orders must cite specific incidents or evidence indicating likely criminal conduct or breach of peace.
- Rejection of parole requests solely based on generic apprehensions, without factual foundation, will not withstand judicial scrutiny.
- Lawyers may cite this precedent to challenge mechanical parole refusal orders lacking particularized reasons.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The Court examined the impugned order’s reasoning and found it rested solely on generic apprehensions of criminal conduct and potential disruption of peace, without any supporting evidence. It relied substantially on the earlier decision in Mehtab Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, where it was held that such apprehensions are insufficient in the absence of specific incidents or conduct pointing to real and present risk. The Court observed that the petitioner was previously on bail for 5.5 years with no adverse incident. Therefore, administrative decision-making based only on speculation could not be sustained; specific, case-based reasons are mandatory. The parole denial order was thus set aside, and parole granted on conditions set by the trial court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The administrative order alleged risk of reoffending and disturbance of peace, but provided no evidentiary basis.
- During the petitioner’s bail period of 5.5 years, no offences or adverse incidents occurred.
- Relied on the Mehtab decision to contend that, absent any specific incident, parole cannot be denied on vague fears alone.
Respondent (State)
- Cited apprehensions of possible re-offence and disturbance of public order as grounds for denial.
- Claimed that the order was justified based on potential risks, without pointing to any particular past incident.
Factual Background
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,00,000/- under Sections 15/27A of the NDPS Act. He appealed his conviction, and the appeal was admitted. While incarcerated, the petitioner applied for parole, which was refused by the District Magistrate on the grounds that his release could lead to further crime and breach of peace. The parole request was denied despite the petitioner having earlier been on bail for 5.5 years without committing any offence. This formed the basis of the present challenge under Article 226/227.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226/227 of the Constitution: Applied as the constitutional basis to seek judicial review of the administrative order denying parole.
- NDPS Act, Sections 15/27A: Offence provisions relevant to the petitioner’s conviction, but not directly interpreted in relation to parole decisions by the Court in the instant judgment.
- Parole considerations: The Court articulated that administrative orders regarding parole must be based on evidence or specific grounds, not generic or speculative concerns.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines were issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on parole refusals, as articulated in Mehtab Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, has been re-affirmed.
Citations
- CRWP-2329-2024, Mehtab Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, Decided on 03.09.2024.
- CRWP/4861/2025, Decision Date: 01.09.2025 (reportable status not stated).