A first-time parole applicant serving ten years under the NDPS Act is to be released for eight weeks, on conditions, after the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that other pending cases alone cannot justify Denying Parole when the State’s fear of absconding rests on no material.
Chandigarh: Holding that a mere apprehension that a prisoner may abscond or return to drug peddling, unbacked by objective material, does not meet the test in Section 6(2) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the District Magistrate’s refusal of parole to a first-time applicant serving ten years under the NDPS Act [Jagjeet Singh alias Kali v. State of Punjab and others].
Justice Sumeet Goel decided the criminal writ petition on November 3, 2026, quashing the order dated August 28, 2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib. Advocate Nitin Rathee appeared for the petitioner and AAG Rahul Adia for the State of Punjab.
Who the petitioner is
Jagjeet Singh alias Kali was convicted in December 2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1 lakh. His appeal was admitted by the High Court in January 2026, and he had undergone more than three years in custody.
Seeking parole for the first time, to look after his family and repair his house, he produced a no-objection from the village panchayat. He argued that the rejection came after unexplained delay and rested entirely on the Superintendent of Police’s report, without the District Magistrate’s independent satisfaction. His counsel told the Court that his jail conduct carried no adverse entry.
Apprehension is not satisfaction
The principal basis for refusal, the Court found, was the authorities’ fear that the petitioner would abscond or resume drug peddling. Nothing beyond that fear had been placed on record:
“…apart from expressing such apprehension, no specific, cogent or tangible material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner’s temporary release is, in fact, likely to pose a threat to the security of the State or result in disturbance of public order.”
The Court held that a mere apprehension, “unsupported by any objective material or specific circumstance indicating a real and proximate likelihood of such danger”, cannot be equated with the statutory satisfaction. It also noted that the State did not claim the petitioner had ever been released on parole and misused it.
Antecedents relevant, not decisive
The State had described the petitioner as a habitual offender with a propensity to repeat the offence. The Court accepted that other FIRs matter, but drew a line:
“Petitioner is involved in other FIR(s). Such antecedents are undoubtedly relevant consideration(s) while examining a prayer for temporary release but mere involvement of an accused in other criminal case(s), by itself, cannot constitute a sufficient ground to deny parole.”
Under Section 6(2) of the 1962 Act, the Court explained, release is barred only where the State or its authorised officer is satisfied that it is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, and that satisfaction must rest on material.
Directions
Conscious of the antecedents and the nature of the allegations, the Court said these concerns could be met by stringent conditions. It directed release on parole for eight weeks on bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the releasing Court or Duty Magistrate, who will impose conditions to secure surrender and notify the dates of release and surrender. The State counsel must report the surrender to the Court after the parole period, and any breach leaves the authority free to act in accordance with law.
Why the order matters
Parole refusals in Punjab frequently rest on a police report listing other FIRs. The order reminds District Magistrates that Section 6(2) asks a specific question, whether release is likely to endanger State security or public order, and that the answer must come from material on record, not from the length of a prisoner’s FIR list. Conditions, rather than outright refusal, are the tool for managing risk.
Case Title: Jagjeet Singh alias Kali v. State of Punjab and others
Case Number: CRWP-12581-2026 (O&M); 2026:PHHC:196967
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Decision: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Nitin Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner; Rahul Adia, AAG Punjab, for the State