Point of Law : If a person commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing a crime, he ceases to be a human being and that he can be deprived of those aspects of life which constitute human dignity. For a prisoner all fundamental rights are an enforceable reality, though restricted by the fact of imprisonment.

ORDER :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 06.10.2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-convict (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) for grant of parole came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the aforesaid order dated 06.10.2021 and grant parole of 28 days.

2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that FIR No.218 of 2014 dated 27.09.2014 was registered against the petitioner alongwith other persons at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan for their having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Vide judgment dated 23.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, in Sessions Trial No.16-NL/7 of 2015, petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine to the tune of Rs. five thousand for his having committed offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Besides above, petitioner also came to be convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine to the tune of Rs.3000/- for his having committed offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Court below, petitioner-convict preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2020 before this Court, but the same is pending adjudication.

4. Petitioner has already undergone sentence of almost eight years and five months including the remission period of five months and seventeen days till date. On 17.11.2020, vide Annexure P-1, petitioner applied for temporary parole to Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services, Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as DG (Prisons), with a view to meet his family. However, after approximately 11 months of filing the application, office of Additional Director General Prisons vide a communication dated 06.10.2021 (Annexure P-2) informed the petitioner through Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla that his prayer for parole has been rejected on account of non-recommendation by District Magistrate.

5. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for issuance of direction to DG (Prisons) to grant him parole for 28 days.

6. Reply to the petition stands filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that on 17.11.2020, petitioner Dharam Pal had applied for temporary release on parole to meet his family members and his request was duly processed by the Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda (Shimla), H.P. vide his letter No.9950-52, dated 20.11.2020 and thereafter the same was forwarded to the concerned District Authorities i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, District Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, for their recommendation/verification, as required under the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It has further been averred in the reply that District Magistrate Bareli, Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 08.09.2021 (Annexure R-2), after having got conducted necessary inquiry through Superintendent of Police, not recommended the case of the petitioner for parole. In the aforesaid communication, it has been specifically stated that local police has raised objection for the temporary release, as there is apprehension that petitioner may abscond, if released on parole.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impu