Latest JudgementBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Virender Alias Molad v. State Of Haryana And Others, 2026

The Court balanced statutory compliance with humanitarian considerations by allowing temporary notification-based movement under escort.

Punjab & Haryana High Court·8 January 2026
Virender Alias Molad v. State Of Haryana And Others, 2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Date of Decision

8 January 2026

Judges

Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • Virender alias Molad is a convicted prisoner serving life imprisonment in a murder case registered in 2006 at Police Station Agroha, Hisar.

  • He filed a petition in the High Court seeking emergency parole for the purpose of attending his wife’s funeral/last rites.

  • The Jail Superintendent, Hisar had earlier rejected the parole request.

  • Virender also faced an NDPS case registered against him while serving his sentence in the main case.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court should grant emergency parole to Virender alias Molad who has not completed the mandatory five-year imprisonment period under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022?

  2. Whether the existence of a subsequent NDPS offense against the petitioner affects his eligibility for temporary release/emergency parole under the 2022 Act?

Held

  • Emergency parole denied due to statutory ineligibility.

  • Jail Superintendent’s decision upheld.

  • Limited relief granted only for attending funeral under police escort.

Analysis

  • The Court applied a strict legal interpretation of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, emphasizing the five-year minimum service requirement for emergency parole eligibility.

  • It classified Virender alias Molad as a “hardcore convicted prisoner”, which attracts stricter parole norms.

  • The Court balanced statutory compliance with humanitarian considerations by allowing temporary notification-based movement under escort.

  • This reinforces jurisprudence that sentence completion and conduct are key determinants in parole decisions under state prison release statutes.