A parole petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ended up raising a larger question — whether a convict's family can afford treatment for his ill three-year-old son. After granting the 35-year-old prisoner eight weeks' parole, the High Court has directed the State to ascertain the family's financial condition so that the child can receive proper medical treatment, if required. It has kept the matter alive for that limited purpose.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth passed the directions while allowing a petition filed by the convict challenging the April 9 order rejecting his request for parole. The Bench was told that the petitioner was seeking three weeks' parole on the ground that his minor son was suffering from a neurological ailment and required his care.

During the proceedings, the State placed on record a verification report stating that the petitioner's family comprised his parents, wife, a daughter aged about 17 years and a son aged about three years and five months.

The report confirmed that the son suffering from spina bifida affecting the spinal region was undergoing treatment at a Rohtak hospital, and had been advised surgery. It further recorded that the medical documents had been verified with the treating doctor at the hospital.

The State, at the same time, referred to the petitioner's antecedents while placing before the court details of 17 criminal cases. Justice Vashisth observed the petitioner had been convicted in four cases and three cases were pending trial. He was either discharged or acquitted by the courts in the remaining cases.

After examining the medical record and photographs produced before the court, Justice Vashisth found the child's condition to warrant immediate attention. "Court has seen the medical report as well as photographs and other relevant medical record, which clearly shows that the child is suffering measurable pathetic condition and he needs urgent medical care."

The court further observed: "If the prayer of petitioner is rejected, it would be it may cause damaged to the life of infant child without too providing any proper care by some responsible person." Justice Vashisth took into consideration his counsel’s submissions that the petitioner ought to be released for eight weeks “in view of the purpose behind granting parole as a rehabilitative measure.”

Displaying the humanitarian side of law, Justice Vashisth asserted: “Though petitioner has prayed for release for three weeks, considering the circumstances in entirety and the ailment with which his child is suffering may require ample time for providing treatment and for the purpose, petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order….”

Before parting with the case, Justice Vashisth proceeded to examine another aspect arising from the State's own report. Noting that the child was undergoing treatment in a specialised hospital and had been advised surgery, the Bench observed that it was necessary to ascertain whether the family possessed the financial means to bear the treatment expenses.

"This Court is of the considered view that the financial position of the petitioner and his other family members as regards to bear the expenses of the treatment of his minor son in a specialized hospital, is required to be ascertained so that proper treatment may be provided to the ailing child, if so required," Justice Vashisth added.

The Bench then asked the State counsel to have the financial status of the petitioner and his family ascertained through the Deputy Commissioner concerned. For considering the aspect, the Registry was directed to list the case again on July 17.