IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for substantiated grounds to reject a parole application and considered the petitioner's entitlement to parole benefits based on previous compliance and lack of material evidence supporting the rejection.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for 28 days and to direct the respondent to decide the parole application of the petitioner, which at the time of filing the petition, was pending for last more than 5 months.

2. Respondents have placed on record instructions dated 22.4.2024 alongwith documents including communication dated 18.4.2024, sent from Director General Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh to the Superintendent Jail, whereby rejection of the application of the petitioner in view of non recommendation of District Authorities, has been communicated during pendency of petition.

3. Petitioner is serving sentence imposed upon him in sequel to conviction by learned Special Judge, POCSO, Shimla vide judgment dated 17.3.2022 in Sessions Trial No. 61-S/7 of 2018/21, case FIR No. 90 of 2018, registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act, in Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., whereby he has been convicted for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.27,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months.

4. Undisputedly, petitioner has undergone actual sentence, as on 19.4.2024, for 6 years after deducting 14 days period of parole granted to the petitioner earlier.

5. It is undisputed that in 2023, petitioner had been released on parole by competent authority in accordance with recommendation report of concerned Authority, i.e. District Authority, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. by complying the provisions of H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and Rules framed thereunder. At that time, as recorded in Form-A Annexure P-4 at Sr. No. 14, petitioner was released on parole for 14 days w.e.f. 5.4.2023 to 18.4.2023 and he had surrendered on due date.

6. This time, the only objection raised by respondents/concerned authority is that family members of victim have expressed their apprehension of harming the family members of victim by petitioner while on parole and with the aforesaid objection, for non recommendation report of concerned District Authority, parole application of the petitioner has been rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as co-ordinate Benches is of this High Court, in case titled Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2017) 15 SCC 55, judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed in CWP No. 5965 of 2023, titled as Retaish Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others, judgment dated 9.10.2023 in CWP No. 6562 of 2023, titled as Pushap Raj Vs. State of H.P. & others, judgment dated 23.5.2023 passed in CWP No. 1710 of 2023, titled as Bihari Lal Vs. State of H.P. & others and judgment dated 23.7.2021 passed in CWP No. 3516 of 2021, titled as Virender Kumar @ Bindu Vs. State of H.P. and others, has advocated that for similar circumstances petitioner is also entitled for release on parole and rejection of his application on the alleged apprehension of family of victim is not sustainable in absence of any material to substantiate the same, particularly when petitioner, at earlier point of time, while on parole, has not caused any harm to the victim or her family.

8. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after release on parole on previous occasion, petitioner had surrendered before the concerned Jail Superintendent on expiry of term of parole and during that period, no adverse incident or report had been complained or reported against the petitioner.

9. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the basis of instructions placed on record, has failed to point out any material to substantiate the plea for which parole application of the petitioner has been rejected, particularly in absence of any such incident while petitioner was on