Surender Singh vs Union of India on 10 November 2026

ORDER

Justice Sudhir Mittal, Member ( Judicial)

The appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 16.06.2026 whereby request of the applicant for grant of Parole was rejected on the ground of policy constraints. The reason given was that policy for grant of Parole permits the same only once in a calendar year whereas the applicant had availed the benefit only in May, 2026.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon guidelines annexed with the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 to submit that in deserving cases Parole can be granted for the second time also. Further, the earlier Parole obtained by the applicant in May, 2026 was due to the sudden unnatural death of the son of the applicant. The application for grant of emergency Parole was not decided and thus, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court vide CRWP-5262 of 2026 (O &M). Vide order dated 08.05.2026 the applicant was granted emergency Parole for a period of 10 days to attend

OA (Appeal) 719 of 2026

-2- ‘ Tehravi Ceremony’ of his son. Such release cannot be equated with grant of Parole under the policy referred to in the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Para 2 (a) of the policy referred to hereinabove to submit that person convicted for serious offences like murder is not entitled to Parole except in emergent cases and that too on the special recommendation of the Jail authorities. No such special recommendation has been made in this case and thus, the applicant is not entitled to grant of Parole.

4. Submission made by learned counsel for the respondents indicates that he accepts the position of law that an emergency Parole granted by the High Court did not amount to grant of Parole under the policy referred to in the impugned order.

5. The impugned order rejected Parole on the ground that second Parole was not permissible. Learned counsel for the respondents cannot go beyond the order. Under the circumstances, the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents is rejected.

5. As previous Parole granted to the applicant cannot be equated with Parole granted under the policy, the order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the General Officer Commanding, HQ 26 Infantry Division is quashed. The applicant is granted Parole for a period of four weeks w.e.f. 13.11.2026 on furnishing requisite surety bond as required under the law before the District Magistrate, Jhajjar.

(Lt Gen Ravendra Pal Singh (Retd)

(Justice Sudhir Mittal) Member (A)

Member (J)

10th Nov, 2026 AKS