Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ranjan Sharma, Vacation J.
Prakash Kumar – Petitioner
versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
CWP No.2286 of 2025
Decided on 21.2.2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 432 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 473] – Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 – Sections 3 and 6 – Parole – Petitionerwas convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 21 and 22 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Mother of petitioner is critical and in hospital – Object of granting parole to a convict is towards reformation of a convict – Convicts have right to breathe fresh air for short periods – Main purpose of parole is to provide humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails – Petitioner is a convict sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 20 years – Petitioner has undergone 3 years 10months and 11 days of total sentence [excluding parole] – Once conduct and behaviour of petitioner while in custody and even during earlier parole was good and nothing adverse was reported against petitioner, correctional therapy needs to be given a facelift – Any objection raised by local inhabitants/relative cannot be sole determinative basis for refusing parole – Parole granted – In order to maintain balance between claim of petitioner for parole vis-à-vis apprehension of State Authorities, stringent conditions imposed. (Paras 5, 5(i), 6(i), 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13)
Result: Petition allowed. Parole granted.
JUDGMENT
Ranjan Sharma, J.—Petitioner, Prakash Kumar, a convict has come up before this Court, seeking his temporary release-parole, with the following relief(s):—
“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 28 days.”
Factual Matrix:
2. Case as set-up by Learned Counsel is that for offences under Sections 21 & 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘ND&PS Act’], the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 06.09.2023, by Learned Special Judge, Mandi Division, District Mandi [HP], for rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-[Rupees Two Lakh], with a default punishment also.
2(i). Facts, as indicated in instant petition, is that mother of the petitioner is critical and she is hospitalized and under treatment in Civil Hospital, Panchkula, which is borne out from the treatment summary and photographs placed on records. It is averred that the petitioner has a brother who is deaf and dumb and petitioner has one daughter and a wife and there is no other male member so as to take care of the mother and to extend facilities as may be required at this stage.
2(ii). It is stated that petitioner was granted parole on two earlier occasions w.e.f. 29.8.2024 to 25.9.2024 and then again for 14 days w.e.f. 31.12.2024 to 22.1.2025 and after expiry of parole period, the petitioner surrendered before concerned jail authorities.
2(iii). Since the medical condition of petitioners mother became unstable therefore, it was in these circumstances that during subsistence of second parole period, petitioner submitted an application for extension of parole by Email on 15.1.2025 but the authorities dropped the application for parole on 6.2.2025, with the plea, that on the ground that petitioner had surrendered after expiry of the parole period on 22.1.2025.
However, since, the health condition of petitioners mother was still unstable therefore, in this back ground, the petitioner [Prakash Kumar] has filed the instant petition through his wife seeking parole for 28 days so as to take care of ailing mother who is bed-ridden/hospitalized as on day.
Stand of State Authorities:
3. Upon issuance of notice on 11.2.2025, this Court directed the respondents to file Reply/ Status Report within two weeks.
3(i). Upon listing of matter today [21.02.2025], Learned State Counsel has furnished Instructions dated 20.02.2025 [Taken on Record], imparted by Director General Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh.
3(ii). The stand of Respondents in Instructions dated 20.02.2025, reads as under:-
“No.7-21/2025-Jail 1062-62
Government of Himachal Pradesh,
“Directorate of Prisons & Correctional Services”
From
The Director General,
Prisons & Correctional Services,
Himachal Pradesh,
To
The Advocate General,
State of Himachal Pradesh,
Shimla – 171 001
Dated Shimla – 171009 the 20 Feb. 2025
The petitioner had previously availed 28 days parole from 29/08/2024 to 25/09/2024 for his mother’s medical treatment. Thereafter, he has again applied for 42 days temporary release on parole on 29/11/2024, to look after and assist in the treatment of his mother. The facts were verified through the SHO, Police Station, Mandi H.P., whose report dated 2.12.2024 (Annexure: B) confirmed that the petitioner’s mother was suffering from a brain stroke and was under treatment at P.G.I Chandigarh.
As per Para No. 19.12 of the H.P Prison Manual 2021, a convict is eligible for second parole “after completion of six months of actual imprisonment to be counted from the date his last return from parole” (Annexure C). The petitioner had not completed the required six months of actual imprisonment from the date of his last return from parole, however, his case was considered by the department on humanitarian grounds, and 14 days parole was granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure D). Subsequently, the petitioner requested a
Parole – Convicts have right to breathe fresh air for short periods – Any objection raised by local inhabitants/relative cannot be sole determinative basis for refusing parole.
Parole serves to maintain family ties and facilitate rehabilitation; denial must be justified by substantial evidence of risk to public order or security.
Parole is a conditional release aimed at the reformation of convicts, and denial based solely on non-recommendation by authorities without substantial justification is impermissible.
Releasing authority must independently assess parole applications beyond district non-recommendation; good conduct prisoners entitled to temporary release for family ties despite serious offence, abs....
Parole rejection invalid if solely based on offence nature without evidence of threat to state security or public order; releasing authority must independently assess good conduct and reform potentia....
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the crime if the convict exhibits good conduct and a tendency to reform, ensuring the maintenance of family ties is critical.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
Parole cannot be rejected solely for heinous offence nature or reoffending apprehension if jail conduct satisfactory and reformation evident; must balance family ties, rehabilitation against public o....
Parole cannot be denied solely for heinous offence; must be based on endangering state security or public order. Good conduct, agricultural need, local support warrant grant despite non-recommendatio....
Parole cannot be rejected solely for heinous nature of offence; must consider good conduct, reformation tendency, family ties maintenance, and absence of threat to public order or society.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
