The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a convict's plea for eight weeks of parole, holding that the condition requiring him to remain imprisoned for his entire natural life without parole must first be modified or set aside. A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol clarified that granting temporary release while the sentencing condition remains in force would conflict with the trial court's order.
Background
The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, on January 9, 2020, and sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his biological life without parole, along with a fine of ₹23,000. His appeal against the conviction was pending before the High Court.
He sought eight weeks of parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022. He stated that his mother had died, his father was in custody in another case, and his sister was preparing for the UPSC examination. According to him, no other family member was available to look after her.
The District Magistrate rejected his request. The decision also referred to a September 2025 incident in which the petitioner had been punished for misusing the Prison Inmate Calling System to make a conference call with another undertrial prisoner.
The Bench examined Supreme Court precedents on parole, including Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka. It explained that parole is a conditional, temporary release rather than an automatic entitlement.
The Court observed:
"Parole is not a matter of right, and the competent authority may deny it for valid reasons. Nevertheless parole exists so that a convicted person can maintain family and social ties and to meet urgent personal and domestic needs."
The Bench also considered the sentencing framework recognised in Swamy Shraddananda, under which imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life may be imposed as an alternative to the death penalty in appropriate cases.
Addressing the effect of the existing sentence, the Court stated:
"The petitioner must have the condition on the sentence modified, and as long as the condition in ASJ, Jind’s order dated Jan 09, 2020 is either modified or set aside, granting parole shall amount to defying the trial Court’s reasoning."
The judges further assessed the petitioner's family circumstances against the applicable statutory provisions and concluded that his stated need to care for his sister did not establish an emergency sufficient to override the subsisting sentencing order.
The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the refusal of parole.
It clarified that the petitioner could make a fresh representation to the competent authority if a genuine urgency arose in the future or seek modification or setting aside of the condition barring parole.
The Court also made clear that its observations did not express any opinion on the merits of his pending appeal.
Case Details
- Case Title: Deepak @ Deepu v. State of Haryana and Others
- Case Number: CRWP-10685-2026
- Judges: Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol
- Decision Date: October 12, 2026
