Punjab & Haryana HC: Onerous Surety for Parole Violates Constitutional Spirit if Financially Incapacitating; Personal Bond Substituted Under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act - 2025-05-15

Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Onerous Parole Condition for Indigent Prisoner

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed a criminal writ petition filed by Mukesh Kumar , setting aside an onerous condition requiring him to furnish two surety bonds of ₹1,00,000 each for his temporary release on parole. The Court, emphasizing that financial incapacity should not negate the reformative purpose of parole, directed his release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000.

The judgment underscores the principle that parole conditions must be reasonable and should not effectively deny release to economically disadvantaged prisoners who are otherwise eligible.

Case Background

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar , was granted temporary release (parole) for six weeks by an order dated September 6, 2024, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022. However, his release was contingent upon furnishing two surety bonds, each in the sum of ₹1,00,000.

Mukesh Kumar , represented by counsel Mr. G.S. Sandhu , approached the High Court through CRWP No. 4921 of 2025, arguing his inability to meet this condition.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Mukesh Kumar : * Belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. * Is a Below Poverty Line (BPL) individual. * Has no supporting parents and an adult daughter currently studying in the 11th standard. * Possesses no substantial immovable property, except for a small ancestral house in his village.

Given these circumstances, arranging sureties for the hefty sum of ₹2,00,000 was an insurmountable hurdle. The counsel prayed for the condition to be modified, allowing the petitioner to furnish personal bonds of a lower amount (₹10,000 each). Reliance was placed on several judgments where similar reliefs were granted, including Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr. and Rinku vs. State of Haryana .

Court's Rationale and Observations

The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and perusing the records, observed that the petitioner was granted temporary release based on his good conduct. It noted the petitioner's dire financial situation and lack of immediate family support.

The Court emphasized the reformative and rehabilitative purpose of parole, stating, "Parole, being a reformative tool, must be accessible in substance and not merely in form." It held that imposing onerous financial conditions without considering the prisoner's economic capacity amounts to discrimination and social marginalization.

Citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 81 , the High Court reiterated that a bail system (and by extension, parole conditions) that keeps individuals incarcerated solely due to their poverty is a violation of the constitutional spirit.

The Court also referred to Moti Ram & Ors vs State Of M.P. (1978) 4 SCC 47 , where Justice Krishna Iyer decried the imposition of excessive monetary conditions for release. The High Court observed:

> "Keeping a convict behind bars when they are otherwise eligible to be released on parole, merely for the reason of financial incapacity, is thoroughly unjustified in view of the constitutional spirit. The overarching aim of granting the concession of parole is to allow the convicts an opportunity to reform and reintegrate into society. This opportunity ought to be available to all citizens in spite of their economic background for the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 to achieve its objective."

The Court found the condition of furnishing two surety bonds of ₹1,00,000 each to be "arbitrary and disproportionate" in the petitioner's case.

Final Decision and Implications

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the condition that required Mukesh Kumar to furnish two surety bonds of ₹1,00,000 each.

The Court directed that the petitioner be released on parole, as previously granted, upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹10,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities.

This judgment serves as a significant reminder that while ensuring the prisoner's return is a valid concern, parole conditions must be tailored to the individual's circumstances and should not render the very provision of parole illusory for the indigent. It champions a more equitable approach to temporary release, aligning with the reformative objectives of the criminal justice system.