230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:09.02.2026 Nitesh ...Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present : Mr. Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

*****

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J .

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for quashing of impugned order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Division Ambala, District Ambala to the extent that a condition has been imposed on the petitioner to furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.2 lacs each for his release on parole for a period of 10 weeks. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondent No.2 to release the petitioner on personal bonds in view of the fact that the petitioner and his family members are financially weak and belonged to the “Below Poverty Line” in view of the settled law.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court in a case arising out of FIR No.448, dated 22.09.2021, under Sections 302, 346, 34, 201 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra. The petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal No. CRA-D-432-2024 titled as “Nitesh and another Vs. State of Haryana”, before this Court, which is still pending for further adjudication and is yet to be decided by this Court. He further contends that the petitioner had moved an application before the Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra seeking regular parole for a period of 10 weeks. After examining the matter, it was found that the petitioner was entitled for grant of parole for a period of 10 weeks. However, the petitioner was directed to file a personal bond and two sureties in the sum of Rs.2 lacs each for faithful observance of the conditions specified in the release warrant. However, the petitioner belongs to a very poor family and was unable to furnish two surety bonds to the tune of Rs.2 lacs each. Learned counsel further submits that this Court in CRM-33030 of 2021 in CRA-S-363 of 2020 titled as “Mahidul Sheikh Vs. State of Haryana” decided on 14.01.2022 held that a prisoner can always be released on personal bonds and for that some remedial measures shall be taken. Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish”

2010(3), JT-341, held that the state has to exercise its power of remission also, keeping in view that any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict, which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. Still further, due to onerous condition of furnishing two sureties in a sum of Rs.2 lacs, the petitioner has not been able to come out of the jail so far.

3. In pursuance to the notice, a status report has been filed by way of Deputy Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Karnal and the same is taken on record.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the police officials had visited the house of Nitesh, petitioner and during verification, it was found that his father drives an e-rickshaw, his mother is a housewife, the elder sister is married and the younger sister and younger brother are presently studying. He further contends that the house of Nitesh is constructed on approximately 10 square yards and the roof consists of iron girders and stone slabs. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner belongs to a very poor family.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have held in a number of judgments that while releasing the