CRWP-13035-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT Hakikat Rai State of Haryana & others CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. The petitioner assails order dated petitioner’s wife application treated for illness. 2. The petitioner stands convicted vide judgment dated learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind dated 17.12.2020 registered at Police Sta under Sections sentenced to undergo Rs.35,000/- 3. The case set ‘Rasoli’ (fibroid) was none in the family to take care of her inasmuch as even the parents of the 1 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CRWP Date of Decision: Hakikat Rai Versus State of Haryana & others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. The petitioner assails order dated 07.11 petitioner’s wife – Seema Devi has been informed about the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner seeking emergency parole to get his wife treated for illness. The petitioner stands convicted vide judgment dated learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in a case arising out of FIR No. dated 17.12.2020 registered at Police Station Sadar Safidon, District Jind, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act sentenced to undergo life imprisonment apart from fine amounting to -. The case set-forth by the petitioner is that his wife ’ (fibroid) in her abdomen and was suffering lot of pain and that there was none in the family to take care of her inasmuch as even the parents of the FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH WP-13035-2025 (O&M) ate of Decision: 18.03.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL RAMESH KUMARI Advocate, for the petitioner. Sharma, DAG, Haryana. 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby Seema Devi has been informed about the dismissal of the seeking emergency parole to get his wife The petitioner stands convicted vide judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed by in a case arising out of FIR No.355 tion Sadar Safidon, District Jind, B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and life imprisonment apart from fine amounting to forth by the petitioner is that his wife - Seema Devi was having a in her abdomen and was suffering lot of pain and that there was none in the family to take care of her inasmuch as even the parents of the , whereby Seema Devi has been informed about the dismissal of the seeking emergency parole to get his wife 20.05.2025 passed by 355 tion Sadar Safidon, District Jind, and life imprisonment apart from fine amounting to was having a in her abdomen and was suffering lot of pain and that there was none in the family to take care of her inasmuch as even the parents of the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.19 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-13035-2025 (O&M) petitioner are senior citizens and his child is a minor. that although the police officials had also conducted verification by visiting his native village and had also recorded the statements of the villagers, who had disclosed about the ailment of the petitioner’s wife, who had been takin treatment from District Jind, but despite the same his request for grant of parole has been declined. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Gyn advised surgery. 4. The State has filed its reply by way of an affidavit of Mr. Deepak Sharma, Superintendent, District Jail, Jind report dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure R verification report dated “Verification of parole case of Hakikat Sahanpur, conducted by me people of the village were recorded as documents of the prisoner Hakikat, is ill for about 5 asking for an operation. There is no one at home for her treatment. Regarding the parole of the prisoner, letter number 8897 the police station on 24 direction to verify the admission of the prisoner's wife Seema in Gyani Ram Hospital, Safidon, which I have verified. In the verification, the Doctor Sahab has stated in writing about Seema, the wife of the prisoner Hakik that do not have admitted who is undergoing treatment for about 15 days. I have obtained the opinion of the concerned doctor regarding the relevant documents submitted by the prisoner Hakikat's wife Seema regarding her treatment of the concerned doctor need for Seema's operation which treatment is going on. It was found in my verificati the prisoner Hakikat has not been admitted in Gyani Ram Hospital as per the record 2 2025 (O&M) petitioner are senior citizens and his child is a minor. that although the police officials had also conducted verification by visiting native village and had also recorded the statements of the villagers, who had disclosed about the ailment of the petitioner’s wife, who had been takin treatment from Shree Gyani Ram Memorial Charitable Hospital, Safidon, District Jind, but despite the same his request for grant of parole has been It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Gyn urgery. has filed its reply by way of an affidavit of Mr. Deepak Sharma, Superintendent, District Jail, Jind, which is accompanied by dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure R-II). verification report dated 25.10.2025 is reproduced herein Verification of parole case of Hakikat Sahanpur, conducted by me Sub-Inspector. The statements of prominent people of the village were recorded as documents of the prisoner Hakikat, is ill for about 5 asking for an operation. There is no one at home for her treatment. Regarding the parole of the prisoner, letter number 8897 the police station on 24.10.2025. According to which direction to verify the admission of the prisoner's wife Seema in Gyani Ram Hospital, Safidon, which I have verified. In the verification, the Doctor b has stated in writing about Seema, the wife of the prisoner Hakik that do not have admitted who is undergoing treatment for about 15 days. I have obtained the opinion of the concerned doctor regarding the relevant documents submitted by the prisoner Hakikat's wife Seema regarding her treatment, which are of Civil Hospital, Safidon. I have obtained the opinion of the concerned doctor, who has said in his written opinion that there is no need for Seema's operation; the condition can be treated with medicines for which treatment is going on. It was found in my verificati the prisoner Hakikat has not been admitted in Gyani Ram Hospital as per the record, medicines have been given, t petitioner are senior citizens and his child is a minor. The petitioner averred that although the police officials had also conducted verification by visiting native village and had also recorded the statements of the villagers, who had disclosed about the ailment of the petitioner’s wife, who had been takin Shree Gyani Ram Memorial Charitable Hospital, Safidon, District Jind, but despite the same his request for grant of parole has been It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Gynecologist had has filed its reply by way of an affidavit of Mr. Deepak Sharma, , which is accompanied by verification . The relevant extract from the said 25.10.2025 is reproduced herein-under: Verification of parole case of Hakikat son of Balwan Singh, resident of Inspector. The statements of prominent people of the village were recorded as documents, who told that Seema, wife of the prisoner Hakikat, is ill for about 5-6 months and is in pain and is asking for an operation. There is no one at home for her treatment. Regarding the parole of the prisoner, letter number 8897-98 was received in cording to which, there has been a direction to verify the admission of the prisoner's wife Seema in Gyani Ram Hospital, Safidon, which I have verified. In the verification, the Doctor b has stated in writing about Seema, the wife of the prisoner Hakik that do not have admitted who is undergoing treatment for about 15 days. I have obtained the opinion of the concerned doctor regarding the relevant documents submitted by the prisoner Hakikat's wife Seema regarding her pital, Safidon. I have obtained the opinion who has said in his written opinion that there is no he condition can be treated with medicines for which treatment is going on. It was found in my verification that the wife of the prisoner Hakikat has not been admitted in Gyani Ram Hospital as per the , there is no need for operation, t The petitioner averred that although the police officials had also conducted verification by visiting native village and had also recorded the statements of the villagers, who had disclosed about the ailment of the petitioner’s wife, who had been taking Shree Gyani Ram Memorial Charitable Hospital, Safidon, District Jind, but despite the same his request for grant of parole has been ologist had has filed its reply by way of an affidavit of Mr. Deepak Sharma, verification The relevant extract from the said son of Balwan Singh, resident of Inspector. The statements of prominent who told that Seema, wife 6 months and is in pain and is asking for an operation. There is no one at home for her treatment. 98 was received in there has been a direction to verify the admission of the prisoner's wife Seema in Gyani Ram Hospital, Safidon, which I have verified. In the verification, the Doctor b has stated in writing about Seema, the wife of the prisoner Hakikat, that do not have admitted who is undergoing treatment for about 15 days. I have obtained the opinion of the concerned doctor regarding the relevant documents submitted by the prisoner Hakikat's wife Seema regarding her pital, Safidon. I have obtained the opinion who has said in his written opinion that there is no he condition can be treated with medicines for on that the wife of the prisoner Hakikat has not been admitted in Gyani Ram Hospital as per the , the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.19 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-13035-2025 (O&M) prisoner's wife can come on her own from home to take her medicines. Therefore report is submitted. 5. On the basis of Sadar Safidon, case of the petit 04.11.2025 moved by the petitioner’s wife, the Jind vide impugned order dated petitioner’s wife that her husband (petitioner emergency parole. State that since the petitioner had not even completed one year of sentence, therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 he is not entitled for parole. 6. We have heard learned counsel. 7. As far as the objection raised by the learned State counsel to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to parole custody, we find that the said condition would be more applicable in a case where the prisoner is to be any application where the prisoner seeks 8. However, we find that upon verification, the petitioner for his release on emergency parole i.e. illness of his wife, was not found to be fully made out inasmuch as the Doctor concerned reported that the petitioner’s treated with the help of medicines only. 3 2025 (O&M) prisoner's wife can come on her own from home to take her medicines. Therefore, no recommendation is made for Hakikat's parole request. The report is submitted.” On the basis of aforesaid verification report Sadar Safidon, the authorities concerned have declined to recommend the case of the petitioner. It was, thereafter, 04.11.2025 moved by the petitioner’s wife, the Jind vide impugned order dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P petitioner’s wife that her husband (petitioner emergency parole. In the affidavit, it has also State that since the petitioner had not even completed one year of sentence, therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 he is not entitled for We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned State As far as the objection raised by the learned State counsel to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to parole as he has not undergone one year of y, we find that the said condition would be more applicable in a case where the prisoner is to be released on ‘regular any application where the prisoner seeks ‘emergency parole However, we find that upon verification, the petitioner for his release on emergency parole i.e. illness of his wife, was not found to be fully made out inasmuch as the Doctor concerned reported that petitioner’s wife is not required to be operated upon and that s treated with the help of medicines only. prisoner's wife can come on her own from home to take her medicines. no recommendation is made for Hakikat's parole request. The aforesaid verification report submitted by SHO, Police Station authorities concerned have declined to recommend the It was, thereafter, pursuant to the application dated 04.11.2025 moved by the petitioner’s wife, the Superintendent, District Jail, 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) informed the petitioner’s wife that her husband (petitioner) has not been found eligible for also been deposed on behalf of the State that since the petitioner had not even completed one year of sentence, therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 he is not entitled for counsel for the petitioner and also the learned State As far as the objection raised by the learned State counsel to the effect that as he has not undergone one year of y, we find that the said condition would be more applicable in a case regular parole’ and would not have emergency parole’. However, we find that upon verification, the primary ground set-forth by the petitioner for his release on emergency parole i.e. illness of his wife, was not found to be fully made out inasmuch as the Doctor concerned reported that is not required to be operated upon and that she could be prisoner's wife can come on her own from home to take her medicines. no recommendation is made for Hakikat's parole request. The submitted by SHO, Police Station authorities concerned have declined to recommend the application dated uperintendent, District Jail, informed the ) has not been found eligible for been deposed on behalf of the State that since the petitioner had not even completed one year of sentence, therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 he is not entitled for counsel for the petitioner and also the learned State As far as the objection raised by the learned State counsel to the effect that as he has not undergone one year of y, we find that the said condition would be more applicable in a case and would not have forth by the petitioner for his release on emergency parole i.e. illness of his wife, was not found to be fully made out inasmuch as the Doctor concerned reported that he could be VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.19 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-13035-2025 (O&M) 9. In view of the aforestated position, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated emergency parole to the petitioner. The petition being sans any merit is hereby dismissed. 18.03.2026 Vimal 4 2025 (O&M) In view of the aforestated position, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P emergency parole to the petitioner. The petition being sans any merit is hereby dismissed. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: In view of the aforestated position, we do not find any infirmity in the 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) declining grant emergency parole to the petitioner. The petition being sans any merit is GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No In view of the aforestated position, we do not find any infirmity in the of emergency parole to the petitioner. The petition being sans any merit is VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.19 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document