Case at a Glance
A convict sentenced by a Jind Sessions Court in 2020 to imprisonment for the whole of his biological life without parole sought eight weeks’ parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, saying his mother had died, his father was in custody and his sister, preparing for the UPSC examination, had no one to look after her. The District Magistrate refused. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his writ petition, holding that while the life-without-parole condition in the sentencing order stands, granting parole would effectively defy that sentence, and that his sister’s needs were not an ’emergency’ under the Act. He was left free to seek modification of the condition, or to make a fresh representation if genuine urgency arises.
The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind on 9 January 2020 in a case arising from FIR No. 586 dated 20 June 2017, Police Station City Jind, involving offences under the IPC, the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment for the whole of his biological life without parole, with a fine of Rs 23,000; his appeal is pending.
He sought eight weeks’ parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, stating that his mother had died long ago, his father was in custody in another case registered in 2025, and his sister, who was preparing for the UPSC examination, had no other family member to look after her. The District Magistrate refused, mainly because the sentencing order barred parole for life, making temporary release incompatible with the sentence and with public interest, and because he had been punished for misusing the Prison Inmate Calling System on 12 September 2025.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a convict whose sentence expressly excludes parole for life obtain temporary release under the Haryana 2022 Act while that condition in the sentencing order stands?
Parole Is a Privilege, and the Sentence Must Be Respected
Writing for the Bench, Justice Anoop Chitkara reviewed the law on parole: it is temporary release that does not change the prisoner’s status (Smt. Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan, (1987) 08 SC CK 0012, [1987] 2 SCR 1123); its grant is generally administrative though High Courts retain Article 226 jurisdiction (Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, (2000) 02 SC CK 0127, [2000] 1 SCR 945); it is a privilege rather than a right (Home Secretary (Prisons) v. H. Nilofer Nisha, (2020) 01 SC CK 0065, [2020] 1 SCR 456); and courts should intervene only sparingly, where a request is unjustifiably refused (State of Gujarat v. Lal Singh @ Manjit Singh, (2016) 06 SC CK 0031, [2016] 4 SCR 816). The Court also referred to Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 07 SC CK 0014, [2008] 11 SCR 93, which recognised special sentences such as life without release.
The Bench set out the scheme of the 2022 Act, including regular parole under Section 3, emergency parole under Section 5 for serious illness or death in the family, and the restrictions on hardcore prisoners under Section 6, though it did not decide whether the petitioner was a hardcore prisoner. Its decisive reasoning was that the trial court’s life-without-parole condition remains in force while the appeal is pending, and granting parole would effectively defy that sentence. The sister’s needs did not displace that condition and did not amount to an emergency under the statute. The refusal therefore did not call for interference in writ jurisdiction.
What the Court Actually Held
- Parole is a conditional, temporary release and a privilege, not a right; judicial interference is exceptional.
- While a sentencing order excluding parole for life stands, temporary release cannot be granted in a way that defies that sentence.
- The convict’s sister’s needs did not constitute an emergency under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022.
- The petition was dismissed, with liberty to make a fresh representation if genuine urgency arises and to seek modification or setting aside of the life-without-parole condition; no view was expressed on the pending appeal.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Courts are increasingly imposing life-without-remission or without-parole sentences; this ruling explains how such conditions interact with State temporary-release laws.
- It tells convicts and lawyers that the correct route is to challenge the condition in appeal or seek its modification, not to bypass it through parole.
- It reaffirms the limited scope of writ review over administrative parole decisions.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Prisoners’ Families
- If the sentence itself excludes parole, a parole application is unlikely to succeed until that condition is modified by the appropriate court.
- Genuine emergencies, such as serious illness or death in the family, may still be raised through a fresh representation.
For Counsel
- Challenge the life-without-parole condition in the criminal appeal or by a modification application before seeking temporary release.
- Map the facts to Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Haryana 2022 Act; general family difficulties may not count as an emergency.
- Disciplinary findings in jail, such as misuse of calling facilities, are relevant to parole decisions.
Key Takeaways
- A sentence of life without parole bars temporary release while that condition stands.
- Family hardship short of a statutory emergency did not justify parole.
- The convict may seek modification of the condition or apply afresh in genuine urgency.
- Writ courts interfere with parole refusals only in exceptional cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a prisoner sentenced to life without parole ever get temporary release?
According to this judgment, not while the condition in the sentencing order stands. The Court left him free to seek modification or setting aside of that condition, and to make a fresh representation if genuine urgency arises.
What is emergency parole under the Haryana 2022 Act?
Section 5 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 provides for short emergency parole in situations such as serious illness or death in the family, subject to verification. The Court held that the sister’s needs here did not qualify.
Did the High Court decide the convict’s appeal?
No. It expressly said nothing in the order expresses a view on the merits of the pending appeal.
Conclusion
The Division Bench drew a clear line: an administrative release scheme cannot be used to dilute a judicial sentence. If the sentence’s no-parole condition is wrong, the remedy lies in the appeal or a modification application.
Practical takeaway: Where a sentence excludes parole, seek modification of that condition from the competent court first; only then will a temporary-release application have a footing.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com