The nature of the offence alone cannot be a sole ground for denying parole. The authorities should consider rehabilitation, continuity of life, and constructive hopes for convicts and prisoners in deciding parole requests.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - 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 reliefs:-

i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus whereby the respondents, more particularly respondent No.2, may kindly be directed to release the petitioner on parole in consonance to the initial application/request of the petitioner.

ii) That in the alternative the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus whereby the respondents may kindly be directed to submit the verification report afresh pertaining to the petitioner initial/first application for release on parole, strictly in terms of the prescribed Rules as framed under the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968.

2. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing reply wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. on 02.12.2017 and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only and due to the non-recommendation of the District Magistrate, the parole case of the petitioner/convict cannot be considered as the recommendation of the District Magistrate is mandatory as per the Section 6 of the Act, which specifically provides that convict is entitled to be released on parole upto the satisfaction of the competent authorities and that the local public and local police have raised objection for released of the petitioner/convict on parole.

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.

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 th