The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused parole to a convict sentenced to imprisonment for the whole of his biological life without parole. The Court held that so long as this condition in the sentencing order stands, granting parole would run against the trial court's sentence.

A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol dismissed the writ petition.

The convict had challenged the District Magistrate's refusal of eight weeks' parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022.

The Bench observed,

“The sentencing order had an explicit condition that the convict (Petitioner) shall have to undergo imprisonment for the whole of the biological life without parole. The appeal is stated to be pending in this Court. 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, probably because of which the Death Sentence was not imposed in such a heinous offense.”

It also said that, "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 seriousness of the offense is relevant to the conditions imposed and may justify refusal when specific circumstances support it."

The petitioner was arrested in a 2017 FIR  under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 34 IPC, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

On January 9, 2020, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, convicted him and sentenced to imprisonment for the whole of his biological life without parole, along with a fine of Rs. 23,000. His appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court.

He sought eight weeks' parole on the grounds that his mother had died long ago, his father was in custody in another FIR and his sister was preparing for the UPSC examination, and there was no other family member to look after her.

The District Magistrate rejected the request. The main reason was that temporary release was incompatible with the sentence and with the interests of society. The rejection also noted that the petitioner had been punished in September 2025 for misusing the Prison Inmate Calling System by making a conference call to another undertrial prisoner.

The Bench reviewed the settled law on parole, relying on Supreme Court decisions including Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan, Maru Ram v. Union of India. Home Secretary (Prisons) v. H. Nilofer Nisha.

From the above, the Court concluded that parole is a conditional, temporary release, not an absolute right, and the power to grant it is primarily administrative. Judicial interference is exceptional. It is warranted where, the request has been unjustifiably refused; material circumstances have been ignored; or the decision rests on considerations that do not rationally bear on public order, State security or the likelihood of misuse.

The Court referred to Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka. In that case, the Supreme Court recognised a special category of sentence, life imprisonment with a direction that the convict not be released for the rest of his life, as an alternative to the death penalty. The High Court said the trial court's “without parole” condition was imposed in furtherance of this principle, which seeks to use the death penalty as sparingly as possible.

The Court also set out the relevant provisions of the 2022 Act on regular parole, emergency parole, custody parole and hardcore convicted prisoners. It said that although parole exists to help convicts maintain family and social ties and meet urgent domestic needs, the seriousness of the offence may justify refusal when specific circumstances support it.

Applying the same, the Court held, “In the present case, the petitioner's asserted need to look after his sister does not displace the express condition in the subsisting sentencing order nor does it establish an emergency of the kind contemplated under the statutory scheme.”

The Court dismissed the petition but left two routes open. The petitioner may make a fresh representation to the competent authority if a genuine urgency arises in the future. He may also seek modification or setting aside of the “without parole” condition.

The Court clarified that nothing in its order is an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending criminal appeal.

Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Haryana.