Back
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Prahlad Kumar alias Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present petition has been filed for quashing the complaint dated 29.8.2020 filed under Sections 8 and 9 of H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the consequent proceedings arising out of the same FIR.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(c) of the ND&PS Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lac and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year in default on payment of the fine. He was serving the sentence in Modern Central Jail, Nahan as per the warrant issued by learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court) Chamba. On 14.11.2019, he applied for 42 days parole for agricultural purposes under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. This application was allowed and 42 days parole was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. A temporary release warrant dated 15.6.2020 was prepared and forwarded to the learned District Magistrate, Kangra for information and acceptance of the surety bond. The learned District Magistr
Parole – Convicts have right to breathe fresh air for short periods – Any objection raised by local inhabitants/relative cannot be sole determinative basis for refusing parole.
Parole serves to maintain family ties and facilitate rehabilitation; denial must be justified by substantial evidence of risk to public order or security.
The High Court cannot grant probation under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when an appeal against conviction is pending, emphasizing the jurisdictional limits of the appellate court.
Rejection of parole based solely on pending FIR and victim's objection held arbitrary; mere FIR registration not ground to deny; grant parole with conditions to uphold reformation and family ties eve....
Acquittal does not erase prior conduct constituting an offence under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, even if it takes retrospective effect.
Parole rejection invalid if solely based on offence nature without evidence of threat to state security or public order; releasing authority must independently assess good conduct and reform potentia....
Releasing authority must independently assess parole applications beyond district non-recommendation; good conduct prisoners entitled to temporary release for family ties despite serious offence, abs....
Parole is a conditional release aimed at the reformation of convicts, and denial based solely on non-recommendation by authorities without substantial justification is impermissible.
The decision to grant or deny parole must be based on relevant evidence and material, and reasons for the decision must be recorded to ensure transparency and justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
