Sonu Alias Vinod Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 27.04.2026 SONU ALIAS VINOD KUMAR ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Ms. Monika Beriwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG Haryana.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 3 and 11(1) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 is for the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.4.

2.

The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 05 years in a Trial emanating out of FIR No.148 dated 08.06.2013 under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Narnaul, District Mahendergarh which was subsequently reduced to 3 years by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 09.05.2025. He seeks the concession of parole for a period of 10 weeks, enabling him to take care of his father, who is suffering from cancer, as also to carry out necessary agricultural work. His parole has been declined on the ground that there is likelihood of breach of peace in his

village, as he is a history-sheeter being a partner in a liquor trade and is also allegedly associated with a known gangster. The apprehension is not premised on any material on record. Therefore, the petitioner be granted the concession of parole.

3.

The learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has filed a reply dated 21.04.2026, which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that the petitioner is a history-sheeter of Pacheri Kalan, Police Station and the Village of the victim and the village of the accused are in close vicinity. He is a partner in a liquor shop and is associated with the Rohit Godara Gang. Therefore, his case was not recommended for the grant of parole. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the father of the petitioner is suffering from cancer and is currently undergoing treatment in hospital. 4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5.

There is no doubt about the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender and a history-sheeter, as is apparent from the Paragraph 01 of the State reply. However, it is equally true that in the case at hand, the petitioner has already undergone 2 years and 04 months of his sentence, including the period of remission, out of his substantive sentence of 03 years. There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner would commit some other crime if he is granted the concession of parole. In fact, his father is ailing from cancer and requires care and support which can be provided in case the petitioner is permitted to attend to him. 6.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of 01 week from the date of his release subject to conditions to be imposed upon him by the Trial Court.

7.

Additionally, he shall prepare an FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court, which shall be returned on his surrendering before the jail authorities after the expiry of his parole period. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE April 27, 2026 kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No