Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Alias Rana vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 20 January, 2026
CRWP-1272-2024 -1- 106 2028: PHHO 007915 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-1272-2024 DECIDED ON: 20.01.2026 ARUN ALIAS RANA coeee PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS cosee RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jhangra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(A) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for atleast 12 weeks for attending old aged parents due to their various ailments.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 31.08.2015 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in FIR No.448, dated 30.06.2013 registered under Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 216, 302 & 34 IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani, Haryana. Aggrieved by the said judgment, he had filed criminal appeal i.e. CRA-D-1418-DB-2015 titled as "Arun @ Rana and POONAM NEGI 2026.01.21 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-1272-2024 -2- others vs. The State of Haryana", which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-2).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks parole for a period of 12 weeks to attend to his old and ailing parents, who are suffering from various ailments. An application in this regard was moved before the competent authorities; however, the same was declined vide order dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-1). It is submitted that while rejecting the parole application, the concerned authorities failed to consider or even advert to the ill health and medical condition of the petitioner's parents, and the impugned order is completely silent on this aspect. Instead, the rejection is based on other factors, including the petitioner's alleged involvement in six other cases and the alleged misuse of parole in the past. At the present stage, the petitioner undertakes to abide by all conditions imposed by law or by this Court and assures that he will not misuse the concession of parole and shall surrender before the jail authorities within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that the parents of the petitioner should not be made to suffer due to the petitioner's past conduct. The rejection of a genuine and lawful request for parole is stated to be in violation of the provisions of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, as well as the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of a convict.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State, submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, POONAM NEGI 2026.01.21 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-1272-2024 -3- whereby the parole of the petitioner was rejected. He further contends that the petitioner had earlier been released on parole from 04.11.2017 to 03.12.2017, but failed to surrender before the jail authorities within the prescribed period, as a result of which he was re-arrested on 19.08.2018 and lodged again in District Jail, Bhiwani. Admittedly, the petitioner was also involved in one case while he was on parole. In view of his past conduct, the likelihood of the petitioner absconding if released on parole cannot be ruled out. Consequently, convict Arun @ Rana is not eligible for grant of parole, and the State strongly opposes the same. Learned State counsel, thereby, submits that the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for grant of parole.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents.
6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment and his conviction has already attained finality after dismissal of his criminal appeal by a Division Bench of this Court. The present petition is confined to the prayer for grant of parole on humanitarian grounds, i.e. to attend to his old and ailing parents.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was earlier released on parole for the period from 04.11.2017 to 03.12.2017 and that he failed to surrender before the jail authorities within the stipulated time, which ultimately led to his re-arrest on 19.08.2018. Moreover, he was also involved in another case during the period of parole. Such conduct on the part of the petitioner reflects misuse of the concession of parole granted to him earlier.
POONAM NEGI 2026.01.21 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-1272-2024 -4-8. The grant of parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 is not a matter of right, but is subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority regarding the conduct of the prisoner and the likelihood of his return to custody. Past conduct of a convict, particularly failure to surrender after expiry of parole, is a relevant and significant consideration while deciding a subsequent request for parole.
9. In the present case, the competent authority has duly considered the petitioner's past conduct, his involvement in multiple cases, and the apprehension regarding his non-appearance in the event of his release on parole. In light of the petitioner's earlier default in surrendering on time, the likelihood of his absconding cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or arbitrariness so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
10. Though this Court is conscious of the humanitarian grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner, the same cannot outweigh the petitioner's past conduct and the statutory considerations governing grant of parole. The discretion exercised by the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak in rejecting the parole application appears to be in consonance with law and the object of the Act.
11. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak as a prisoner who has misused the concession of parole by committing another heinous crime during the parole period under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) POONAM NEGI 2026.01.21 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-1272-2024 -5- Amendment Act, 2015 is not entitled to temporary release on parole. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU) 20.01.2026 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No POONAM NEGI 2026.01.21 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document