Sonu Alias Siya v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: June 24th, 2026 Sonu alias Siya .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI

Present:

Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aashish Yadav, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a criminal writ petition under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 3, 12, 5, 11 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 2022 for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to grant parole to the petitioner to enable him to meet his old aged widow mother as well as to restore social ties.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court in FIR No.364 dated 10.09.2017 under Sections 302, 216, 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonipat, and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. It is submitted that against the said judgment, an appeal has been filed which is pending adjudication and that the petitioner had applied for parole on 19.03.2026 to the jail authorities and respondent No.4 vide dispatch No.4026-29 dated 19.03.2026 had forwarded the parole

case of the petitioner to respondent No.3. It is submitted that respondent No.3, as per the instructions of the petitioner, has not recommended the case of the petitioner and has taken no action on the same and respondent No.2 has not passed any final order on the said parole application. It is further submitted that the petitioner had given a reminder on 20.04.2026 with respect to the same.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon Section 12 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 and has submitted that there is specific timeline which has been given in sub-Section 11 of Section 12 of the abovesaid Act and respondents be directed to decide the parole application of the petitioner in the said timeline. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On advance notice, learned State counsel has very fairly submitted that in case any such application for grant of parole has been filed by the petitioner on 19.03.2026, the same would be considered by respondent No.3 in accordance with the provisions of law and the recommendation/non-recommendation would be made within a period of three weeks from today, in case the same has already not been made and the final order would be passed by the competent authority within a further period of two weeks from the decision of respondent No.3. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same satisfies the petitioner and the present petition be disposed of but the respondents be bound by the statement made before this Court. 7.

In view of the same, the present petition is disposed of.

8.

Respondents would be bound by the statement made before this Court.

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE June 24th, 2026 (RAMESH KUMARI) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No