PARKASH ALIAS OM PARKASH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CRWP/5569/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010792882026

e-Filing Number

06-05-2026

Filing Number

CRWP/36992/2026

Filing Date

08-May-2026

Registration No

CRWP/5569/2026

Registration Date

11-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara

Coram

Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

42.3 - PAROLE ( 312 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARKASH ALIAS OM PARKASH

    Adv. GAGANDEEP KAUR

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

  3. 3.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

  4. 4.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Anoop ChitkaraView PDF

    Case Summary: CRWP 5569/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition filed by Parkash (seeking 10-week parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, 2022) by allowing withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh representation. The State counsel noted that the petitioner's April 1, 2026 representation lacked district identification, making it non-decidable. The court directed that any fresh representation be decided within statutory timeframes, with outcomes communicated to petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRWP/5569/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRWP 5569/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition filed by Parkash (seeking 10-week parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, 2022) by allowing withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh representation. The State counsel noted that the petitioner's April 1, 2026 representation lacked district identification, making it non-decidable. The court directed that any fresh representation be decided within statutory timeframes, with outcomes communicated to petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case