Rahul v. The State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 28.10.2025 Rahul .... Petitioner versus State of UT, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. N.K.Vashist, Addl. PP, UT, Chandigarh.

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral) 1.

Instant petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, , has been filed for issuance of directions to official respondents to decide the application filed by the petitioner for grant of parole. 2.

On 09.09.2025, following order was passed by this Court: " Instant petitioner has been filed by the petitioner - Rahul, aged about 39 y ears, for issuance of time bound directions to the respondents for deciding the application submitted by the petitioner/convict, for grant of parole, in view of order dated 09.07.2025, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRWP-4908-2025 (O&M), titled as, "Jaspal Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab and others". 2.

On 06.08.2025, following order was passed by this Court:- "i) Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of parole.

ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was convicted vide order dated 11.02.2014 under Section 302 IPC, in case FIR No. 465 dated 16.12.2011, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Thereafter, petitioner filed Criminal Appeal against the order of conviction and sentence before this Hon'ble High Court, registered as CRA-D-635-DB-2014, titled Rahul vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh. The said criminal appeal was heard by this Hon'ble High Court on 01.10.2019 and was allowed.

Counsel submits that thereafter the order dated 01.10.2019, passed by this Hon'ble High Court setting aside the petitioner's conviction, was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order dated 01.10.2019, thereby upholding the conviction order dated 11.02.2014.

Thereupon, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner surrendered to the jail authorities in Chandigarh and has been in custody since then.

iii) Counsel further contends that the petitioner has already undergone more than ten years of imprisonment and has applied for parole. The discharge order dated 10.01.2025 (which, as per counsel, was wrongly typed as 10.01.2015) is pending with the office of the District Magistrate, Panchkula, Haryana - respondent No. 3. Counsel further submits that several reminders bearing numbers 2007 dated 13.02.2025, 2780 dated 07.03.2025, 4036 dated 07.04.2025, 4854 dated 05.05.2015, and 6276 dated 11.06.2025 have also been sent to respondent No. 3, but no final decision has been taken; rather, he is sitting over the request.

iv) Notice of motion.

v) Mr. Narender Kumar Vashisth, APP, U.T.

Chandigarh appears on behalf of respondent/U.T.

vi) On the asking of the Court, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, appears on behalf of respondent No.3.

vii) Learned counsel for respondent/U.T. confirms that the petitioner's request for parole release is currently pending before respondent No. 3, who is not the appropriate authority to issue the required instructions. viii) Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, is directed to to get instructions in this regard. ix) List on 25.08.2025.

x) However, it is made clear that if the contents narrated by the petitioner are found to be correct and no decision is taken before the date fixed, respondent No. 3 shall appear in person before this Court on 25.08.2025. xi) To be shown in the urgent list."

3.

Thereupon, today, learned Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh, has produced a copy of the order dated 27.08.2025, passed by respondent No.3 - District Magistrate, Panchkula, whereby a negative report with regard to the recommendation has been forwarded to respondents No.1 and 2.

Copy of the order dated 27.08.2025 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

4.

Taking into consideration all the circumstances, respondents No.1 and 2 (the competent authority) are directed to take a final decision on the plea of the petitioner for release on parole.

5.

List again on 28.10.2025.

Final order be passed within a period of four weeks from today."

3.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that in compliance of direction issued by this Court, now application/representation has finally been decided whereby request to release the petitioner on parole has been rejected. Therefore, he prays that petition be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous and liberty be granted to the petitioner to file fresh petition by challenging the said order in accordance with law. 4.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, instant petition is disposed of, same having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner as prayed for and recorded hereinabove.

28.10.2025 (SANJAY VASHISTH) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No