Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Privilege, Not a Right: High Court Upholds Denial of Parole to Convicted Prisoner

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the Superintendent Jail’s decision to deny parole to a life-term convict, citing the individual’s status as a ‘hardcore convicted prisoner.’ The decision was announced on November 6, 2023, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta.

The petitioner, Kuldeep @ Balkar, had challenged the order dated March 15, 2023, that rejected his application for temporary release on parole. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order and a mandamus to direct his release for a 10-week period under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022.

However, the court observed, “The remission and parole are not the vested rights of the prisoners. In fact, these are privileges granted by the State to the convicted prisoners,” underscoring the discretionary nature of parole. This observation came in response to the petitioner’s history of committing offenses while on parole, which placed him squarely in the ‘hardcore prisoner’ category as per the Act’s stipulations.

Justice Deepak Gupta highlighted that the petitioner’s criminal actions during previous temporary releases justified the denial of his parole request. The court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that privileges like parole must be earned through good conduct, particularly when public safety is at stake.

The petitioner’s advocate, Mr. Harsh Rana, had argued for the petitioner’s release based on the premise that he had not been convicted for the offenses committed during parole. Nonetheless, the court’s analysis centered on the legislative intent to prevent further offenses by those already deemed a risk, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the petitioner’s request for release.

The decision has reaffirmed the judiciary’s cautious approach towards granting parole, especially to those with a history of re-offending while out of custody. The ruling is expected to have a significant impact on parole proceedings, especially for prisoners classified as ‘hardcore.’            Date of Decision: 06.11.2023

KULDEEP @ BALKAR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 

Latest Legal News