Punjab & Haryana High Court clarifies that mere pendency of another criminal case, including under the NDPS Act, is not a valid ground by itself to refuse parole. Upholds earlier coordinate bench rulings; serves as binding authority within the Punjab & Haryana High Court for parole and furlough cases to convicted prisoners facing multiple prosecutions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
|
| Date of Registration | 27-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI (with MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL, J.) |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana High Court; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms precedent (Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab; Manga @ Manga Singh v. State of Punjab) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Prisoners’ Rights, Parole, NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether mere pendency of another criminal case, including NDPS offences, disentitles a convict to parole. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the existence of another pending criminal case against a prisoner, including under the NDPS Act, cannot be a standalone ground for denial of parole or furlough. The authorities’ position that the petitioner is “habitual” and likely to abscond was unfounded, as petitioner had been on regular bail for several years without absconding. The objective of parole is both rehabilitation and societal protection; mere apprehension unsupported by evidence is insufficient for refusal. The Court relied on earlier coordinate bench decisions which categorically negate pendency of other proceedings as a valid reason for denial, especially after grant of bail. The impugned order declining parole was found unsustainable and set aside. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Object and purpose of parole is dual: rehabilitation of the convict and protection of society. Parole enables reform by maintaining contact with society. Only specific, substantiated apprehensions may justify denial. Authorities must act on facts, not on vague suspicions or the bare pendency of other cases. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner, convicted under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act and serving a 12-year sentence, applied for 8 weeks’ parole to repair his flood-damaged home. Authorities declined parole on the ground of a second NDPS case pending trial, though the petitioner was already on bail in that case. There were no allegations of jail misconduct or risk of absconding, as he had remained on bail for years without absconding. Photographic evidence supported need for repairs; wife and minor children resided alone. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts dealing with parole/furlough for convicted prisoners |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that pendency of other criminal proceedings (including under NDPS Act) alone cannot justify refusal of parole or furlough if the convict is otherwise eligible and on bail in those cases.
- Clarifies that authorities must base refusal on concrete, factually substantiated risks—mere apprehensions or suspicion are insufficient.
- Parole should be granted in furtherance of rehabilitation and to allow the convict to maintain family ties and attend to urgent family needs.
- Lawyers can cite this decision to challenge summary refusals of parole grounded only in pendency of other cases against the convict.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first examined the ground taken by the authorities—that the petitioner was likely to abscond or reoffend due to pendency of a second NDPS case—and found it unsupported by facts.
- Noted that the petitioner had been on bail from 2018 to 2024 in the original NDPS case, and during that period did not abscond or commit any jail offence; merely being prosecuted elsewhere is not indicative of future conduct.
- Relied on coordinate bench verdicts in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Manga @ Manga Singh v. State of Punjab, which establish that pendency of criminal proceedings is not a valid ground for declining parole or furlough.
- Emphasized parole’s twin aims: rehabilitation of the prisoner and protection of society. The decision to deny parole may stand only if supported by specific material, not speculative or generalized fears.
- The authorities’ blanket application of “habitual offender” reasoning was deprecated; the impugned order was deemed unsustainable in law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that pendency of another case is not sufficient ground for denying parole.
- Emphasized urgent need for presence at home due to flood damage and family need (wife and minor children).
- Provided photographs corroborating house damage.
- Pointed out no jail misconduct; did not abscond when on bail previously for multiple years.
State/Authorities
- Opposed parole on ground that petitioner had committed a second NDPS offence while on bail; asserted likelihood of recidivism and absconding if released.
- Argued that release on parole may encourage further illicit activity and harm society.
Factual Background
The petitioner, convicted and serving a 12-year sentence under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act, applied for 8 weeks’ parole to attend to severe flood damage to his home, where his wife and minor children reside. The authorities, based on a police report, denied the request citing pendency of another NDPS case (regarding recovery of 5 kg poppy husk) and an apprehension that the petitioner, allegedly a “habitual” offender, might abscond or indulge in further crime. There was no allegation of any jail misconduct. The petitioner challenged the denial in the High Court, providing photographic evidence supporting the necessity of repairs.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 15 of the NDPS Act: Conviction basis.
- Parole law and rules (as applied in Punjab): No statutory provision was read to suggest pendency of another case as an exclusionary ground.
- Constitutional Articles 226/227 invoked for writ jurisdiction. The Court interpreted parole norms purposively, protecting both reformation and public safety, and reading down any blanket rule used by authorities to deny parole merely based on pendency of other criminal cases.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate concurring or dissenting opinion; the bench was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations were introduced or discussed in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court expressly followed and affirmed earlier binding rulings of coordinate benches, reinforcing legal consensus and predictability on the subject.