Mere Apprehension of Breach of Peace Cannot Justify Parole Refusal, Rules Punjab & Haryana HC

A Division Bench set aside a District Magistrate's order refusing parole to a life convict, holding that unsubstantiated apprehension of village unrest is no ground to deny temporary release under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners Act.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 5 May 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by Gurwinder Singh alias Guri, a life convict lodged in Central Jail, Gurdaspur, and directed his release on parole for eight weeks. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor set aside an order dated 4 November 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, which had refused the petitioner's parole application. The bench found that the refusal rested entirely on a bare apprehension that the petitioner's release might disturb the peace and tranquility of his village, a ground the court held to be legally insufficient and unsupported by any material on record. The judgment reaffirms that the criminological purpose of parole is prisoner reformation, and that competing interests of the convict and society must be weighed, not resolved by conjecture.

The Conviction and the Parole Application

Gurwinder Singh was convicted in FIR No. 13 dated 28 February 2021, registered at police station Ghuman, District Gurdaspur, under sections 302, 307, 379-B(2), 323, 341, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. At the time of the petition, he had been incarcerated for more than five years and seven months, both as an undertrial and as a convict.

He applied for parole under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, a statute that provides for the temporary release of prisoners who have maintained good conduct, subject to conditions. His application sought release for a period of eight weeks.

The District Magistrate rejected the application on 4 November 2024. The stated grounds were that the petitioner's reputation was not good given his conviction for the murder of a woman during a snatching offence, that he had no immediate family other than a brother, and that his release might disturb the peace and tranquility of the village.

The State's Additional Objection and Its Collapse

When the matter came before the Division Bench, the State counsel raised a further objection. The reply filed by the respondents referred to FIR No. 116 dated 28 August 2014, registered at police station Ghuman under sections 363, 366, 376, 341, and 120-B IPC. The State pointed out that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender in that case by an order dated 11 July 2016, and had been brought into the proceedings only after a production warrant was executed.

The petitioner's counsel responded by placing on record the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Gurdaspur, dated 8 April 2026. That court had acquitted the petitioner in the very case the State was relying upon. The acquittal judgment recorded that the prosecutrix herself had stated in her testimony that the petitioner had not committed any offence against her, and the court found no evidence connecting him to the charges.

With the acquittal in hand, the State's supplementary objection lost its factual foundation entirely.

Why the Bench Found the Refusal Unsustainable

Justice Rohit Kapoor, writing the oral judgment for the bench, identified the core infirmity in the District Magistrate's order: it was built on apprehension, not evidence. The petitioner's conduct throughout his incarceration was undisputed, the respondents themselves did not allege any jail offence or misconduct during the period of more than five years and seven months.

The bench noted that the object of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 is precisely to provide for temporary release of prisoners who have maintained good conduct. Since good conduct was not in dispute, the refusal could not stand on a vague fear of village unrest.

The court relied on the coordinate bench's ruling in Ram Chander v. State of Punjab and others, 2017(3) RCR(Cri.) 340, which had held that likelihood of committing a crime and mere possibility of breach of peace cannot be a ground for denying parole. The bench applied that principle directly to the facts before it.

The bench also drew on Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, reported at (2017) 15 SCC 55, for the proposition that the criminological objective of parole is the reformation of the prisoner, and that due consideration must be given to that societal aim when balancing the convict's interest against public interest.

On the ground that the petitioner had no family other than a brother, the bench found this too was not a valid basis for refusal. The petitioner had a legitimate reason to seek parole: to meet his brother and to attend to the reconstruction of documents destroyed in a fire at his house before his conviction. The Sarpanch of his village had issued a certificate confirming that the petitioner had been a resident of the village since birth, that a fire had destroyed essential documents, and that he owned property in the village. These facts, the bench held, demonstrated that the petitioner had deep roots in the society.

The bench articulated the governing standard: “balance has to be maintained between two competing interests, that of reforming the convict on one hand, and public purpose and interest of society on the other.” Applying that standard, the court found the balance tilted in favour of release, given the clean conduct record, the acquittal in the second case, the Sarpanch's certificate, and the absence of any concrete material supporting the apprehension of unrest.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed CRWP-5461-2025 and set aside the order dated 4 November 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Gurdaspur. The petitioner, Gurwinder Singh alias Guri, is to be released on parole for a period of eight weeks. The release is subject to his furnishing necessary surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent authority and his giving an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour during the parole period. He is required to surrender before the jail authorities on the expiry of the parole.