The High Court clarifies that parole may not be denied merely on the apprehension that a convict may re-offend, unless such apprehension is supported by material on record. This judgment upholds existing precedent and strengthens the evidentiary threshold for denying parole, serving as a binding authority for parole matters involving NDPS Act convicts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRWP/5127/2025 of JUGRAJ SINGH ALIAS RAJA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR |
| CNR | PHHC010772782025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-05-2025 |
| 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 on courts within Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Prison Administration / Parole; NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether parole can be denied on surmise or without record-based justification, especially for convicts under NDPS Act? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the States of Punjab and Haryana; authorities deciding parole under NDPS Act |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and legal practitioners dealing with parole applications under similar statutory contexts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates that denial of parole must be supported by evidence or material on record; generalized apprehensions do not suffice.
- Explicitly holds that mere pendency of other criminal cases or previous conviction does not automatically justify denial of parole in the absence of concrete supporting material.
- Sets out that authorities must record specific reasons, with reference to material, if parole is to be refused.
- Lawyers can rely on this ruling to challenge arbitrary or speculative denial of parole, especially in cases involving special statutes such as the NDPS Act.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the grounds for declining parole: the apprehension that the petitioner may “indulge in the business of sale of Narcotics/drugs” if released.
- It was found that this conclusion was not based on any material presented on record.
- The petitioner was a convict in one other case under the NDPS Act and had been acquitted in another; however, no material was cited to show a real and immediate risk of re-offending during parole.
- The Court concluded that denial of parole cannot be based on conjecture or unsubstantiated fears; a factual foundation is required.
- Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was granted parole for four weeks subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Application for grant of parole was wrongly declined on speculative grounds.
- Only one other conviction exists, and in another case, the petitioner was acquitted.
- No records or evidence substantiate the apprehension that he would re-offend if released on parole.
- Sought that the impugned order be set aside and parole be granted.
State/Respondent
- Filed affidavit stating competent authority’s apprehension that the petitioner would smuggle drugs if released on parole.
- Opposed the grant of parole on that basis.
Factual Background
The petitioner was convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine. He sought parole for the purpose of repairing his house. The application was declined by the Director General of Prisons, Punjab, citing apprehension of drug smuggling if released. The petitioner had a previous conviction under the NDPS Act and an acquittal in another case. The present petition challenged the denial of parole order dated 30.04.2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner invoked the Court’s power to issue writs.
- The relevant statutory framework concerning parole for convicts under the NDPS Act was considered.
- The Court interpreted the authority’s discretion under the law to grant or refuse parole, emphasizing that such discretion must be based on evidence or material, not mere suspicions.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms and applies established principles regarding evidentiary requirements for refusing parole.