Describing the absence of attendants in most hospitals as comparable to “night driving in hills without headlights,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted eight weeks’ parole to a life convict to care for his son, who is suffering from a progressive genetic disorder.The court held that the child’s medical needs and the ground realities of healthcare must be weighed against apprehensions about the convict’s release, which cannot be based on conjecture.The Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol asserted that the need for medical care had to be assessed in light of the ground realities of healthcare and “not against what a well-equipped hospital would ideally provide.”Referring to an article titled “Challenges to Healthcare in India,” the Bench observed that the country’s healthcare scenario had been described as a spectrum of contrasts.“At one end are modern, high-technology hospitals where there is no need for any attendants, but these serve mostly the well-off patients, whereas in the majority of the hospitals, the absence of attendants is comparable to night driving in hills without headlights. Thus, there is a strong case for the requirement of attendants for the person under medical needs, depending upon the hospital, ailments, and the paramedical staff,” the Bench added.Referring to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner’s son had been certified as having 50 per cent disability due to Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a condition that could progressively worsen.“A child assessed at 50 per cent today might need more support in the future,” the Bench observed, adding that the child required continuous care. His condition was serious and progressive, and its management depended on continuous parental involvement. The Bench further noted that public healthcare facilities could not be assumed to respond to an emergency in time without parental intervention.“The medical position supports a humane, evidence-based assessment of the petitioner’s request for parole, rather than a rejection resting solely on the nature of the offence or on apprehension of risk. The impugned order does not consider the certificate, fails to examine whether the petitioner’s claim that no one can care for the child is correct, and does not weigh the child’s needs against the apprehension of risk,” the Bench observed.Before concluding, the Bench set aside the Ludhiana District Magistrate’s order dated May 21, which had rejected the parole plea. It noted that the plea had been rejected on the grounds that the petitioner 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 impugned order did not explain how the pending case established a likelihood of the convict misusing parole, nor did it identify any material suggesting that he would abscond or commit another offence.