Life Imprisonment Without Parole: Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses Temporary Release Where Sentencing Order Expressly Bars Parole
Case Name: Deepak @ Deepu v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 12 October 2026
Citation: CRWP-10685-2026
Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that parole is not an absolute right and cannot be claimed in disregard of an express condition in a subsisting sentencing order directing imprisonment for the convict’s entire biological life without parole. Unless such a condition is modified or set aside, the convict’s personal or family circumstances cannot, by themselves, justify interference with the competent authority’s refusal of parole.
Summary: The petitioner, convicted under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 34 IPC, the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act, had been sentenced to imprisonment for his entire biological life without parole. He sought eight weeks’ parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, to look after his sister, stating that his mother had died and his father was in custody.
The competent authority rejected his request primarily in view of the express prohibition on parole in the sentencing order and the interests of society. His misuse of the Prison Inmate Calling System was also noted.
Referring to Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, Maru Ram v. Union of India, Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka and other precedents, the Division Bench reiterated that parole constitutes conditional temporary release and remains subject to statutory requirements and administrative discretion.
The Court observed that granting parole while the express prohibition in the sentencing order remained operative would run contrary to that order. It further held that the petitioner’s stated need to care for his sister did not constitute an emergency warranting interference under the applicable statutory framework.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the refusal of parole. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner could seek modification or setting aside of the no-parole condition or submit a fresh representation before the competent authority if genuine urgency arose in the future.