The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere conviction for a serious and heinous offence cannot be the sole ground for denying parole, and that parole should be granted by taking a humanistic approach to afford the convict an opportunity to solve personal and family problems and maintain links with society.

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.

ii) That in the alternative the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus whereby the respondents, more particularly respondents No. 4 and 5, may kindly be directed to submit the verification report afresh pertaining to the petitioner's request/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, by addressing the factual aspect relating to the grounds on which the application has been preferred.

2. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing reply wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner is undergoing rigorous life imprisonment in Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in connection with case bearing FIR No. 210/2014, registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 IPC and due to the non-recommendation of the District Magistrate, Moga on the ground that there is apprehension of breach of law and order and the other party has showed apprehension of danger to his life, in case the petitioner is released 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 the case of furlough it extends to fourteen days maximum.

(iv) Parole is granted by Division