Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has granted eight weeks of parole to a murder convict to care for his son with 50% disability, saying that though modern, high-tech hospitals did not require attendants, these facilities mostly served well-off patients.




Pointing out the reality of healthcare in the region, a division bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol said that in a majority of hospitals, “the absence of attendants is comparable to night driving in hills without headlights”.




The HC set aside a May 21 order of the Ludhiana district magistrate that rejected the parole plea of murder convict Vipal Jain , whose son has disability due to Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), a progressive genetic disorder.




The bench directed authorities to release Jain within seven working days of the order being uploaded on the court’s webpage, subject to conditions. The order was uploaded on Oct 22.




Jain, through his counsel Lavanya Gupta, had applied for parole under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, attaching his child’s disability certificate with the petition.




He submitted that no one else could look after the child and his presence was required to stabilise the child’s condition.




Arrested in an FIR dated March 2, 2018, Jain was convicted of murder on Jan 16, 2025, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. According to the custody certificate dated Sept 9, he had spent six years in custody.




The district magistrate rejected the plea on the basis of a report from the Ludhiana superintendent of police, stating that the petitioner might commit an offence or abscond if released. The record claimed that Jain was serving a sentence for a heinous offence and was also an accused in an FIR dated Sept 4, 2024, registered under the NDPS Act in which production warrants had also been issued.




The high court observed that judicial review of an order refusing parole was limited and it did not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority.




The HC observed that parole must be interpreted and applied liberally in favor of the convict. “The benefit cannot be denied on mere surmises that release could cause local law-and-order disturbances. To hold otherwise would erode the rights that the parole framework is meant to protect,” it said.




The bench also referred to the distinction between law and order, public order and the security of the state, observing that the competent authority must explain how releasing a convict on parole would actually affect public order or the security of the state. “Mere conjecture or apprehension is not sufficient. A refusal, however, cannot rest on mere surmise that release may cause a local law-and-order problem; it must be supported by objective material showing a legally relevant risk,” the court said, adding that an ordinary breach of law and order did not, by itself, justify denying parole.




On the child’s medical condition, the bench referred to medical literature describing DMD as a progressive condition involving advancing muscle weakness, eventual loss of the ability to walk, and respiratory and cardiac complications. It observed, “A child assessed at 50% today might need more support in future.”




The HC noted that the condition’s management depended on early, genetically confirmed diagnosis, multidisciplinary standard care, corticosteroids and access to mutation-specific therapies and clinical trials. “This meticulous care depends on a parent who takes the child to appointments, follows the treatment plan, and decides between options on the child’s behalf,” it observed.




The bench found that the district magistrate’s order did not consider the disability certificate, failed to examine the petitioner’s claim that no one else could care for the child, and did not weigh the child’s needs against the apprehension of risk. It held the order “fails both legal and empathetic scrutiny and deserves to be set aside”.




On the NDPS case, the HC observed that the impugned order did not state what bearing the case had on the question of whether the petitioner would misuse the parole. It also did not indicate that he had misused an earlier release, been involved in any act of indiscipline in custody, or that specific material suggested he would commit an offence while on parole.




Allowing the plea, the bench also clarified that the order was not a blanket bail or suspension-of-sentence order in any other matter.