Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 80706 (PNJ)

PARDEEP KHAN ALIAS BHOLU v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CRWP/7728/2025 · 2025-07-21

Sandeep Moudgil

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRWP-7728-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CRWP-7728-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2025 PARDEEP KHAN ALIAS BHOLU ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Deepak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** SANDEEP MOUDGIL , J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 seeking 10 weeks parole to meet with his family members as despite the direction of this Court (Annexure P-5) respondent No.2 did not decide the application filed by the petitioner and the same is still pending with respondent No.3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had moved an application seeking 10 weeks parole in January, 2025 before respondent No.4 and the same was marked to the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the same was marked to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, it is still pending. The petitioner then approached this Court by way of filing CRWP-6465-2025. Vide order dated 18.06.2025, this Court had disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the application of NISHA 2025.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-7728-2025 (O&M) -2- the petitioner but all in vain. Learned counsel further submits that he will be satisfied in case a direction be issued to official respondents to decide the parole application of the petitioner, within a time bound manner. 3. Learned State counsel assures that necessary steps would be taken and he will apprise the authorities with the observation of this Court. 4. Without adverting to the merits of the case and in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Hisar is directed to look into the parole application of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The order so passed in the said representation shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of three days thereafter. In case such application is not available with the authorities, the present petition shall be treated as representation. 4. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 21.07.2025 Nisha Yadav Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NISHA 2025.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document