Back
RANJAN SHARMA, VACATION
Prakash Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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(
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
