The High Court reaffirmed that a parole petition filed under Article 226 and the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act becomes infructuous if the event giving rise to the prayer (attendance at last rites) is completed before adjudication; the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn and does not lay down new substantive law. This reiterates existing procedural precedent and is binding on subordinate courts within the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRWP/11582/2025 of ANIL KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC011739482025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the territorial jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Does a parole petition for attending last rites survive if the event is complete prior to decision? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that if the event for which parole is sought (last rites) has already occurred prior to hearing, the petition is rendered infructuous. The petitioner’s prayer for withdrawal was accepted, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. There was no adjudication on the merits of grant/refusal, reaffirming the necessity to examine maintainability of reliefs in light of changed circumstances. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner sought parole to attend his father’s last rites; last rites completed before hearing; petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar procedural fact situations |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reconfirms that parole petitions under Article 226/Act for time-bound events (such as last rites) become infructuous if the event concludes before the hearing.
- Provides a clear procedural course: withdrawal or dismissal as infructuous is appropriate in such scenarios.
- Lawyers should promptly update the court if circumstances change, as the High Court may not adjudicate merits once relief becomes academic.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the factual report filed by the State confirming the petitioner’s father’s death and completion of last rites.
- Recognizing that the core relief prayer—attendance at the last rites—had already become impossible to grant, the court accepted the petitioner’s request for withdrawal.
- The judgment reaffirmed the procedural approach whereby courts do not entertain petitions that become academic due to events or relief sought no longer being capable of being granted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought parole for 8 weeks to attend his father’s last rites.
- Upon learning the event had already taken place, prayed for withdrawal of the petition.
Respondent (State)
- Filed a factual report confirming death of the petitioner’s father and completion of last rites.
Factual Background
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, seeking parole for eight weeks to attend his father’s last rites. During the pendency of the petition, the State submitted a report confirming the father’s death on 18.10.2025 and completion of the last rites on 27.10.2025. Therefore, by the time of hearing, the purpose of the parole had been overtaken by events. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, which was allowed.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution and Sections 3 and 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 and 2022.
- The judgment does not provide an interpretive analysis of the statutory provisions, since the matter was disposed of for being infructuous.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were set forth in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reiterates established procedural law on handling infructuous petitions where the events in question have already occurred.