Mere Police Apprehension of Breach of Peace Cannot Justify Denial of Parole Without Concrete Material: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Ahmad Sahib v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 25 May 2026
Citation: CRWP-12178-2024
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that parole cannot be denied merely on the basis of generalized police apprehensions regarding breach of peace or possibility of absconding in the absence of concrete material. The Court reiterated that parole is a reformative and rehabilitative statutory concession intended to preserve family and social ties and not a dilution of punishment.
Summary: The petition was filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution read with Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 seeking quashing of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal rejecting the petitioner’s request for regular parole for ten weeks.
The petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to conviction in an FIR registered under Sections 222, 223, 224, 395 and 397 IPC along with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner sought regular parole to attend family obligations and agricultural responsibilities at home. His application had been processed and recommended by the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal after recording satisfaction regarding fulfilment of statutory conditions under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022.
However, the parole request was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner on the basis of adverse police inputs expressing apprehension that the petitioner might abscond or disturb public peace if released. The impugned order also described the petitioner as a habitual offender.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the rejection order had been passed mechanically without reference to any tangible material or past misuse of parole. It was contended that parole serves a reformative purpose and generalized police apprehensions alone cannot constitute valid grounds for denial of temporary release.
The State defended the order by contending that the petitioner was involved in multiple criminal cases and there existed apprehension of breach of peace if he was released on parole.
After examining the record, the High Court found that except for vague and generalized observations, no specific material had been cited by the authorities to justify denial of parole. The Court noted that the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal had positively recommended the petitioner’s case for parole and the State itself admitted that the petitioner had already undergone sentence in another FIR and was on bail in all remaining cases.
The Court emphasized that parole is not to be viewed as a dilution of punishment but as a statutory concession aimed at furthering the reformative and rehabilitative objectives of criminal jurisprudence. The Court observed that maintenance of family and social ties is an important aspect of prisoner rehabilitation and that mere apprehension of breach of peace unsupported by objective material cannot justify denial of parole.
The High Court further held that the competent authority is required to apply its independent mind to the prisoner’s conduct, surrounding circumstances and statutory requirements rather than mechanically relying upon generalized police inputs. Since there was no allegation of previous misuse of temporary release or material showing threat to public order or State security, the impugned order was held to suffer from non-application of mind.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal. The respondents were directed to release the petitioner on regular parole for a period of ten weeks subject to furnishing requisite bonds, sureties and compliance with conditions imposed under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022.