A convict sentenced to life without parole cannot be granted parole while that condition stands, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held, leaving him free to seek modification of the condition or to make a fresh representation if a genuine emergency arises.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a convict who was sentenced to imprisonment for the whole of his biological life without parole and who challenged the District Magistrate’s refusal of eight weeks’ parole, holding that granting parole would defy the trial court’s reasoning for as long as the condition subsists [Deepak @ Deepu v. State of Haryana and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol pronounced the judgment on October 12, 2026, in CRWP-10685-2026, after reserving it on September 18, 2026. Rajesh Nain appeared for the petitioner, and Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State of Haryana. The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
How the case reached the High Court
The petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 586 dated June 20, 2017, registered at Police Station City, Jind, under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On January 9, 2020, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, sentenced him to imprisonment till the whole of his biological life without parole and imposed a fine of Rs 23,000. His appeal against that conviction is pending in the High Court. A custody certificate dated September 17, 2026, records that he had served 11 years, 5 months and 13 days.
He then sought eight weeks’ parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, citing the death of his mother, his father’s custody in another FIR (No. 958 dated June 24, 2025) and the need to look after his sister, who is preparing for the UPSC examination. The District Magistrate refused, reasoning that the sentencing order barred parole and that temporary release was incompatible with the sentence and with societal interests. The refusal also noted that he had been punished on September 12, 2025, for misusing the Prison Inmate Calling System.
The legal position on parole
The Bench began from the settled position that parole is conditional and administrative, is not a matter of right, and calls for judicial interference only in exceptional cases. It relied on Sunil Fulchand Shah, Poonam Lata, Maru Ram, Lal Singh and H. Nilofer Nisha, and on its own earlier decision in Deepak Kumar (CRWP 7882 of 2022).
It also referred to Swamy Shraddhananda on sentences of life imprisonment without release, and reproduced Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the 2022 Act, which provide for regular parole of up to ten weeks in a calendar year, emergency parole of up to four weeks a year for serious illness or death in the family, and custody parole, along with the provisions on hardcore prisoners.
Sentences of this kind have a history of their own. In Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2015), a Constitution Bench held that a life sentence can be fixed for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, but that only the High Courts and the Supreme Court can so specify, and a Division Bench of this High Court had earlier held in Savitri v. State of Haryana (2020) that trial courts cannot attach such riders. The present ruling does not decide that question. It deals with the consequence of the condition as it stands in the sentencing order.
What the Court held
The Court said that parole may be denied for valid reasons and that, so long as the condition of life without parole stands, granting parole would amount to defying the trial court’s reasoning. In the words of the order:
granting parole shall amount to defying the trial Court’s reasoning
On the ground that he had to care for his sister, the Bench held that her need does not displace the express condition in the subsisting sentencing order and that the petitioner had not shown an emergency of the kind contemplated under the statutory scheme. The refusal therefore did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
The directions
The petition was dismissed and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of. The dismissal does not stop the petitioner from making a fresh representation to the competent authority if a genuine urgency arises in the future, and he remains free to seek modification or setting aside of the condition of life imprisonment without parole. The Court added that nothing in the judgment expresses a view on the merits of his pending appeal.
Why the judgment matters
The judgment shows how a sentencing rider operates in practice. Temporary release under the 2022 Act is discretionary, and an authority that refuses it by pointing to a subsisting no-parole condition is treated as acting for a valid reason. The humanitarian grounds a prisoner raises, however compelling, have to be weighed against the sentence he is actually serving.
It also marks out the way forward for such convicts. Rather than seek temporary release against the condition, the remedy the Court points to is to have the condition itself modified or set aside, or to approach the authorities afresh if a real emergency arises. The sentence, the conviction and the appeal were not examined on merits.
Case Title: Deepak @ Deepu v. State of Haryana and Others [CRWP-10685-2026]
Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Judgment: October 12, 2026
Appearances: Rajesh Nain for the petitioner; Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, for the State of Haryana
The case includes an offence under the POCSO Act. If a child needs help, CHILDLINE 1098 is available toll-free, round the clock.