IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is that the rejection of a parole application must be based on valid and substantiated reasons, in accordance with the relevant provisions and case law.

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 42 days with further prayer to quash the rejection of prayer of petitioner for releasing him on parole communicated to him vide letter dated 3rd November, 2023, Annexure P-3.

2. Petitioner, being convict is serving his sentence for execution/implementation of judgment dated 30th June, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur in Sessions Trial No.42-N/7 of 2013 in case FIR No. 186 of 2013 registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur HP whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.

3. In response to petition, respondents have placed on record the instructions dated 22nd April, 2024 along with documents. In Custody Certificate, placed on record with instructions, it has been stated that petitioner has undergone total sentence with remissions for 15 years, 02 months and 01 day as on 19th April, 2024, after deducting the parole period i.e. 04 months and 26 days.

4. It has been stated in instructions that the applicant had applied for temporary release on parole on 13th March, 2023 for agriculture purpose and his request was forwarded to the District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police Sirmaur H.P. for recommendations/verification report as required under the provisions of H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release), Act, 1968 and Rules framed thereunder.

5. According to respondents, parole case of petitioner, after conducting the necessary inquiry, was not recommended by the District Magistrate, Sirmaur on the ground that it was uncertain whether the convict had surrendered in Jail or not and further victim’s family had raised the objections to the convict’s temporary release, stating that if he was released on parole, he may harm the family of victim. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of crime committed by petitioner and non-recommendation report of the concerned District Magistrate, parole application of the petitioner was rejected on 3rd November, 2023.

6. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that earlier on filing CWP No. 726 of 2019 titled Harbhajan Singh vs. State of HP, vide order dated 25th October, 2019 the Principal Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to take decision on the parole application of petitioner, preferred at that time, within a period of two weeks with further clarification that report made by District Magistrate should also demonstrate that the said report was based only on the conditions set out in Section 6 of the Act. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in furtherance to aforesaid direction, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, respondents had released the petitioner on parole.

7. Thereafter, again the petitioner was enlarged on parole during Covid period from 16.8.2021 to 13.12.2021.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner for allowing the application, has placed reliance on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in 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; judgment dated 23.7.2021 passed in CWP No. 3516 of 2021, titled as Virender Kumar @ Bindu Vs. State of H.P. and others; and submitted that for similar circumstances petitioner is also entitled for release on parole and rejection