The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted eight weeks’ parole to a life convict to care for his son suffering from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), a progressive genetic disorder. The court observed that a child’s medical needs must be assessed against ground realities of healthcare rather than ideal hospital conditions.The Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol held that apprehensions about the convict’s release could not be based on conjecture.Describing the absence of attendants in most hospitals as comparable to “night driving in hills without headlights”, the Bench referred to an article titled “Challenges to Healthcare in India” to highlight disparities in medical facilities. It observed that while modern, high-technology hospitals may not require attendants, most hospitals depend on family members to assist patients, depending on their ailments and the availability of paramedical staff.The court noted that the convict’s son had been certified as having 50 per cent disability due to DMD, a condition that could progressively worsen and require increasing support. It stressed that the child needed continuous care and parental involvement, particularly during medical emergencies, when timely intervention by public healthcare facilities could not be assumed.The Bench observed that the medical evidence supported a humane, evidence-based assessment of the parole request rather than rejection solely because of the nature of the offence or apprehensions about risk. It noted that the impugned order failed to consider the disability certificate, examine whether anyone else could care for the child, or balance the child’s needs against the perceived risks.Setting aside the Ludhiana District Magistrate’s May 21 order rejecting parole, the court noted that the plea had been dismissed because the convict was serving a sentence for a heinous offence and was also an accused in a separate case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.However, the Bench observed that the order neither explained how the pending case established a likelihood of parole misuse nor identified material suggesting that the convict might abscond or commit another offence.