The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphatically asserts that it is important for every convict to maintain an active connection with society. Balancing the scales between justice and the reintegration of individuals into society, a Division Bench of the high court has decreed that staying in touch with the community is not merely optional but an essential requirement.

This ruling underscores the court's belief in the necessity of incarcerated individuals establishing and sustaining ties with society as a crucial step in the transformation of offenders into responsible and contributing citizens.

“It is necessary for a convict to maintain his contact with society, which would facilitate his reformation and turn him into a responsible citizen at the time of his release,” the Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh ruled.

When presenting the case before the bench, the petitioner's legal representative argued that the petitioner had been found guilty of a homicide offense, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the petitioner had been sentenced to life imprisonment and had already served a substantial period of five years behind bars.

The Bench was apprised that the petitioner's brother had tragically passed away on January 12, succumbing to injuries sustained in an accident on December 25 of the previous year. Although the jail authorities had granted permission for the petitioner to attend his brother's funeral while in custody, he was now seeking parole to provide him the opportunity to be with his mourning family during this challenging time.

Contrastingly, the state counsel presented a status report and subsequently contended that the petitioner had been discovered in possession of a mobile phone while in custody. Due to this violation, the petitioner was categorized as a hardcore prisoner, making him ineligible for parole release, according to the state counsel's argument.

After considering the opposing arguments and reviewing the relevant documents, the bench affirmed that the petitioner's brother had indeed passed away. In light of this, the bench acknowledged the essential need for the petitioner to be present with his bereaved family during this trying period.