Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Benefit of Probation in Grievous Hurt Case After Long Pendency; Holds Reformative Justice Must Prevail Over Retribution

Case Name: Dalvinder Singh and Another v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 12 January 2026

Citation: CRR-2260-2019

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the criminal revision on merits but modified the order of sentence by granting the benefit of probation to the petitioners under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court held that where the convicts are first offenders, have clean antecedents, have undergone prolonged criminal proceedings for over a decade, and the offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, reformative justice must be preferred over incarceration.

Summary: The revision petition was filed challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala, whereby the petitioners were convicted under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment. The appeal preferred by the petitioners had already been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala.

At the hearing of the revision, learned counsel for the petitioners confined the challenge solely to the quantum of sentence and sought the benefit of probation. It was submitted that the petitioners had already undergone 17 days of actual imprisonment, had clean antecedents, were not involved in any other criminal case, and had faced the rigours of criminal litigation for more than thirteen years. The State as well as the complainant did not raise any serious objection to the limited prayer.

The High Court undertook an extensive discussion on the object and scope of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, relying on authoritative Supreme Court judgments including Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, Isher Das v. State of Punjab and Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas. The Court reiterated that the object of probation laws is to reform first-time and non-hardened offenders and to prevent their exposure to hardened criminals in jail, particularly in cases involving less serious offences.

Applying these principles, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners back to jail after such a long lapse of time. The Court noted that the offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, that the petitioners had remained on bail during the long pendency of proceedings without misusing liberty, and that they were leading peaceful lives with their families.

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed on merits and the conviction was upheld. However, the order of sentence was modified. The petitioners were directed to be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing personal bonds of ₹25,000 each with one surety, subject to conditions of good behaviour and maintenance of peace. It was directed that in case of breach of conditions or involvement in any illegal activity, the sentence awarded by the appellate court would stand revived.