Mohd Sanjay Alias Jaggu v. The State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others
CRWP-1584-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-1584-2026 JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON OPERATIVE PART PRONOUNCED OR FULL UPLOADED ON 27.02.2026 10.03.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 11.03.2026 Mohd. Sanjay alias Jaggu ....Petitioner Vs.
State of U.T. Chandigarh and others ....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Varun Baanth, Addl. P.P., U.T. Chandigarh with Mr. Akash Shoni, Advocate and Mr. Sahil Lohan, Advocate for the respondent-U.T.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 16.08.2021 Sector 39, Chandi379-A, 411 IPC garh 1.
Aggrieved by the rejection of parole vide order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Inspector General, Prisons, UT Chandigarh, the petitioner who has been convicted in the FIR captioned above, had come up before this Court by filing the present criminal writ petition.
2.
On 12.02.2026, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed a detailed order, in which it was explicitly mentioned in Sr.No. 2 of the table of para iv, that as per verification, the family of convict is found residing at the given address i.e. #1913 Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Chd., which was meticulously verified. However, in para 7 of the said order, Coordinate Bench had directed the respondent to conduct verification again and as per para 8, a fresh report was directed to be submitted to this Court by the next date. 3.
On 27.02.2026, when the matter was listed, no compliance report has been filed, ANJU RANI 2026.03.11 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
CRWP-1584-2026 however the State counsel on instructions submits that mother of the petitioner is residing at the given address. The only conclusion this Court can draw is that earlier address of the petitioner was not properly verified, as such, address given by the convict where he supposed to reside, is correct.
4.
Thus, in the entirety of facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, U.T. Chandigarh, is quashed and set aside. If the petitioner has not been released on parole then the fresh exercise be taken and completed on or before 25.03.2026, and the order passed be communicated not only to the petitioner but also to Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. It is clarified that if compliance is not made to this Court it shall be permissible for the petitioner to file application for contempt of Court against the Inspector General of Prisons, Chandigarh and other people who are found sitting over the matter. 5.
Registry to send a copy of this order to counsel for U.T., for compliance. However it is clarified that if the petitioner has already been released on parole, then there shall be no need to comply with the directions as mentioned above. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 10.03.2026 Anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
ANJU RANI 2026.03.11 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh