Point of Law : Supreme Court held that merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2 of the Act.

ORDER :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.08.2020 (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 27.08.2020.

2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that the petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for life for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 vide judgment dated 27.03.2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, in Sessions Trial No.II-VII-13, as a consequence of which the petitioner at present is lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.

3. Petitioner has already undergone sentence of almost eight years and five months till date and during his stay in the jail, he has already earned two years one month and four days remission period. On 19.05.2020, vide Annexure P-1, petitioner applied for parole to Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services, Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as DG (Prisons). He stated in the application that he used to reside in rented house with family at EWS 218 Rakkar Colony, Tehsil and Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. and at present his brother and sister-in-law reside at Neelaghat, Ward No.11, Tehsil and Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. He stated that his brother, sister-in-law and sister are unable to meet him on account of poverty and as such he be granted parole for 28 days. However, vide communication dated 27.08.2020, issued under the signatures of DG (Prisons) petitioner was informed that his prayer for parole is rejected on account of non-recommendation by District Magistrate.

4. 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.

5. On 17.11.2021, this Court, having taken note of the averments made in the petition as well as address given by the petitioner in application (Annexure P-1) for parole, wherein he has categorically stated that his brother still resides in Una, directed respondents to make fresh verification about the address given by the petitioner. Pursuant to aforesaid direction, learned Additional Advocate General has made available communication dated 30.04.2022 received in the office of Advocate General from the office of Additional Director General Prisons & Correctional Services. Perusal of aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, clearly reveals that the matter was got inquired by Superintendent of Police, Una, District Una, H.P. through local police. As per report, Shri Anil Kumar, brother of the petitioner is permanent resident of Village Neelaghat, Ward No.11, Tehsil and Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order Annexure P-2, we find that primarily prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of parole has been rejected on the ground that he is not the permanent resident of Ward No.11, Neelaghat, Tehsil and Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P. Deputy Director General Prisons & Correctional Services vide communication dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure P-2), rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of parole on the ground that District Magistrate has not recommended his case. Perusal of communication dated 22.07.2020, issued under the signatures of District Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P. to the DG (Prisons) clearly reveals that only reason and basis for not recommending the case by District Magistrate, U