JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of impugned order dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the official respondent No.4 vide which his application for regular parole was rejected, with a further prayer to release the petitioner on regular parole for 70 days in FIR No.437 dated 26.10.2005 under Sections 302, 201 of the IPC registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the FIR in question. The appeal of the petitioner against his conviction was dismissed uptil the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and he is currently serving his sentence in District Jail, Nuh. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner applied for seven days of parole, which was rejected by respondent No.4 on the grounds that the petitioner is classified as a 'hardcore criminal' under Section 2(1)(g)(i)(v) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), which is reproduced as under:

'hardcore convicted prisoner' means any prisoner -- who fails or failed to surrender himself within a period of ten days from the date on which he should have so surrendered on the expiry of the period of parole or furlough for which he was released'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was categorized as a 'hardcore criminal' in the impugned order annexed as Annexure P-1, primarily due to his failure to surrender on time on 24.04.2021, as required by the terms of the earlier parole granted to him. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had surrendered in the jail after his earlier parole, after a delay of 10 days. Learned counsel has further emphasized that the petitioner has already been punished for this violation under the provisions of the now - repealed Act of 2018, which prohibited him from reapplying for parole for a period of one year.

4. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner had previously applied for parole to attend the marriage of his daughter, by approaching this Court in CRWP 1611 of 2022, titled as 'Rishi Pal vs. State of Haryana and others'. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 23.02.2022, however, the petitioner could not be released in time due to a delay in furnishing the requisite bail bonds. In support, attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure P-3.

5. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 22 years and according to the Haryana Government's policy regarding premature release of life-convicts (Annexure P-2), he is eligible only for permanent release, not parole.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner wishes to meet his family members and thus, a sympathetic view be taken and the petitioner be granted parole. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures that the petitioner will maintain public peace and order, while on parole, and will adhere to all terms and conditions, as may be imposed. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 'Varun @ Gullu vs. State of Haryana & others' CRM-M No.34013 of 2009, 'Mohd. Shehbaaz vs. State of Punjab & others' CRWP No.3196 of 2022 and 'Tarsem Singh @ Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab' CRWP No.8081 of 2022.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the application filed by the petitioner for parole was rightly rejected vide impugned order as he falls within the category of 'hardcore criminals' under the Act. Learned State counsel argues that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in 11 criminal cases including some case while in jail. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner had misused the earlier parole granted on 11.05.2020 by surrendering late by ten days.

8. In response to a specific query from the Court, the State has not disputed that, of