The main legal point established is that the denial of parole should not be solely based on the nature of the offence, and the authorities must consider the rehabilitation and reformation of convicts, balancing their interests with the societal interests.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. The request made by the petitioner for releasing him on parole has been turned down by the respondents, constraining him to file the instant petition for the grant of following substantive relief:-

"i). Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to grant parole to the petitioner in a time bound manner, as per law laid down therefor;

2. The only ground for rejecting the request of the petitioner for releasing him parole is that he has been convicted for offences i.e. under Sections 302, 211 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and presently undergoing the imprisonment at Model Central Jail Nahan and the complainant of the case namely Krishan Dev son of Sh. Dhayan Singh r/o, Ward No. 3, Mawakoholan, Tehsil Ghanari, District Una has raised objection qua his release on parole and during re-examination of the above parole case, it has found that there were three persons involved in the aforesaid case and out of three, one person has absconded while availing the parole and still at large.

3. Now the moot question is whether the request for grant of parole can be rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted for a serious and heinous offence and that the complainant has raised objection qua parole of the petitioner.

4. It is more than settled that the grant of remission or parole is not a right vested with the prisoner. It is a privilege available to the prisoner on fulfilling certain conditions. This is a discretionary power which has to be exercised by the authorities conferred with such powers under the relevant rules/regulations. The Court cannot exercise these powers, though once the powers are exercised, the Court may hold that the exercise of powers is not in accordance with rules.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered in detail the nature, object, purpose and parameters for grant of parole subject to which parole can be granted in Asfaq versus State of Rajasthan and others, (2017) 15 SCC 55, wherein it was observed as under:

"14. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief release from the prison. It is conditional and is given in case of long term imprisonment. The period of sentence spent on furlough by the prisoners need not be undergone by him as is done in the case of parole. Furlough is granted as a good conduct remission.

15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the period of sentence or for rest of his life in case he is a life convict. It is in this context that his release from jail for a short period has to be considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family problems but also to maintain his links with society. Convicts too must breathe fresh air for at least some time provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens. Thus, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for good of societies must receive due weightage while they are undergoing sentence of imprisonment.

16. This Court, through various pronouncements, has laid down the differences between parole and furlough, few of which are as under:

(i) Both parole and furlough are conditional release.

(ii) Parole can be granted in case of short term imprisonment whereas in furlough it is granted in case of long term imprisonment.

(iii) Duration of parole extends to one month whereas in the case of furlough it extends to fourteen days maximum.

(iv) Parole is granted by Divisional Commissioner and furlough is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.

(v) For parole, specific reason is required, whereas furlough is meant for breaking the monotony of imprisonment.

(vi) The term of imprisonment is not included in the computation of the term of parole, whereas it is vice versa in furlough.

(vii) Parole can be granted number of times whereas there is limitation in the case of furlough. (viii) Since furlough is not granted for any parti