Court Emphasizes Parole as a Conditional Privilege, Not a Right; Rejects Petition Seeking Temporary Release on Family Grounds Under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner Act, 2022
In a significant judgment dated October 12, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Division Bench) dismissed a petition filed by Deepak @ Deepu, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment till his whole biological life without parole for heinous offenses including murder and offenses under the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act. The petitioner sought parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, citing family grounds-his father's incarceration and the need to support his sister preparing for the UPSC examination.
The Court, comprising Justices Anoop Chitkara and Harmeet Singh Deol, reiterated that parole is not an absolute right but a conditional and temporary release from custody, governed by statute and administrative rules. It observed that parole does not suspend or alter the sentence but is a privilege granted primarily at the discretion of the competent authority. Judicial intervention in parole matters is limited and warranted only if the refusal is unjustified, relevant material is ignored, or irrelevant considerations affect the decision.
The petitioner's sentence explicitly directs imprisonment for life without parole, a condition that has neither been modified nor set aside, thus making any grant of parole contrary to the sentencing order. The Court highlighted that such a sentencing condition is in line with Supreme Court precedents aimed at minimizing death penalty imposition by substituting it with life imprisonment without parole in the rarest of rare cases. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must first seek modification of this condition through the appropriate judicial process.
Addressing the petitioner's ground that his sister required care due to his father's custody, the Court held that this did not amount to a statutory emergency under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner Act. It noted the petitioner's prior misuse of prison privileges and the serious nature of the offenses committed as relevant factors justifying the refusal. The Court further clarified that parole's purpose includes maintaining family and social ties and addressing urgent personal needs, but this must be balanced against public interest and the nature of the sentence.
The judgment cites authoritative Supreme Court rulings, including Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India (2000), Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980), and Swamy Shraddhananda v. State of Karnataka (2008), which collectively affirm parole as an administrative privilege subject to judicial review only in exceptional cases. The Court also referenced the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, detailing provisions related to regular parole, emergency parole, and restrictions on "hardcore" prisoners.
While dismissing the petition, the Court left open the petitioner's right to apply afresh should genuine urgency arise or to seek modification of the parole denial condition in the pending appeal. The ruling underscores the judiciary's careful balance between humanitarian considerations and the imperatives of justice and public safety.
Bottom Line:
Parole is not an absolute right but a conditional temporary release governed by statute; where the sentencing order directs imprisonment for whole biological life without parole and such condition subsists, parole can be refused, and writ court will not interfere merely on family grounds not amounting to statutory emergency.
Statutory provision(s):
Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 Sections 3, 5, 6; Constitution of India Articles 226, 227; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Deepak @ Deepu v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004071
