Observing that pendency of other criminal cases is relevant but not sufficient to deny Parole, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted eight weeks' parole to a convict serving a ten-year sentence under the NDPS Act. It held that the authorities' apprehension that he might abscond or return to drug peddling, unsupported by any objective material, does not meet the requirement of Section...
Observing that pendency of other criminal cases is relevant but not sufficient to deny Parole, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted eight weeks' parole to a convict serving a ten-year sentence under the NDPS Act.
It held that the authorities' apprehension that he might abscond or return to drug peddling, unsupported by any objective material, does not meet the requirement of Section 6(2) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.
Justice Sumeet Goel set aside the order of the District Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, rejecting the parole plea, and observed:
"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."
It added, “In the present case, the principal basis for declining parole appears to be the apprehension of the authorities that the petitioner may abscond during the period of temporary release and may again indulge in drug peddling. However, 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.”
In December 2025, the petitioner was convicted under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. His appeal was admitted by the High Court in January 2026. He had undergone more than three years of custody.
He applied for parole for the first time, to take care of his family and repair his house, and the village panchayat gave its no-objection. On August 28, 2026, the District Magistrate rejected the application.
The petitioner argued that the rejection order was arbitrary, came after an unexplained delay and was based entirely on the Superintendent of Police's report, without any independent satisfaction by the District Magistrate.
The State opposed the plea. It argued that the petitioner was a habitual offender with a “propensity to repeat such offence(s)” and was likely to resume selling narcotics or abscond if released.
The Court held that under Section 6(2) of the 1962 Act, the bar on release applies only when the State Government or its authorised officer is satisfied that the release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. It held that criminal antecedents are relevant, but:
“…mere involvement of an accused in other criminal case(s), by itself, cannot constitute a sufficient ground to deny parole. The statutory requirement under Section 6(2) of the Act (ibid) is that there must be material forming the basis for a satisfaction that the release of the prisoner is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.”
The Court added 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” required by the provision.
The Court also highlighted that, the respondents did not claim that the petitioner had ever been released on parole and misused it.
This was his first plea for parole. According to his counsel, his conduct in jail had been satisfactory, with no adverse entry. His request was supported by the Gram Panchayat.
The Court said it was “conscious of the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations”, but held that these concerns “can be adequately safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions while granting parole.”
The Court set aside the order and directed that he shall be released on parole for eight weeks from the date of release, on furnishing bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the releasing Court or Duty Magistrate.
If any condition is violated, the competent authority is free to act against him in accordance with law, the Court added.
Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Adia, AAG Punjab.