Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Joginder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for parole leave under the act of 2022. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's argument based on case law for parole. (Para 2) |
| 3. state's opposition based on the act of 2022. (Para 3) |
| 4. analysis of the law's prospective application. (Para 4) |
| 5. order for granting parole based on legal findings. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby, the application submitted by son of the petitioner for grant of 10 weeks’ parole leave under Section 3 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2022’) in case bearing FIR No.320 dated 20.05.1997 under Sections 15 /16 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa, has been rejected and further, for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on regular parole leave for 10 weeks.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR (supra) was registered in the year 1997 and the petitioner is currently undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Hisar. He further submits that the pr
Substantive changes in law, such as the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, must have prospective effect only, ensuring no disadvantage to accused individuals based on past convictions.
The Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 governs parole applications made after its enactment, irrespective of the timing of the underlying offences.
House repair constitutes 'sufficient cause' for parole under the Good Conduct Act, and specific conditions can be imposed to ensure the safety and security of the victim and her family members during....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of parole should be based on solid reasons and material, and not on surmises and conjectures. The court emphasized the right to ....
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions must be respected and that the definition of hardcore prisoner under the Act did not apply to the petitioner, ensuring his right to parole.
The right to seek treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India can influence the decision regarding parole, especially in cases of medical necessity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
