Punjab & Haryana HC: parole can't be denied over a family member's alleged conduct alone

Hearing a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed a District Magistrate's order denying parole to a convict serving twelve years under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Justices Anoop Chitkara and Subhas Mehla reaffirmed that parole, unlike furlough, is not a right but a reformative privilege, to be interpreted liberally in the convict's favour and refused only for cogent, objective reasons tied to the security of the State or public order, not mere apprehension. Borrowing the 'three concentric circles' analogy from Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1965) — security of the State as the smallest circle, public order the middle one, and law and order the largest — the Bench held that an ordinary law-and-order concern cannot by itself justify refusing parole; only a threat reaching the narrower circles can.

The impugned order had relied solely on the alleged anti-social conduct of the petitioner's mother and the family's unexplained move, without any finding that the petitioner himself had misused an earlier release. The Court held such family antecedents cannot, by themselves, justify denial, and granted parole for eight weeks on specified conditions, including surrender of firearms and furnishing of surety bonds.