Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J., Ranjan Sharma
Kashish Gulyani – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Petitioner, Kashish Gulyani, a convict has come up before this Court, seeking his temporary release-parole, with the following relief(s):-
“A. That the respondent may kindly be directed to provides the copy communication against the application for parole, filed by the petitioner or decide his case.
B. The petitioner may kindly be release on parole for a period of 28 days.”
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case as set-up by Learned Counsel isthat an FIR No.251/2022, dated 26.06.2022, was registered against the petitioner under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘ND&PS Act’]. This accusation was put to trial resulting in conviction and sentence by the Learned Special Judge-II, Kullu [HP] vide judgment dated 11.10.2023, mandating the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh], with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for failure to deposit the fine.
2(i). The case set-up is that the petitioner had undergone two years, seven months and twenty five days of sentence and he had not availed the benefit of parole earlier. It is
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.
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 serves to maintain family ties and facilitate rehabilitation; denial must be justified by substantial evidence of risk to public order or security.
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 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....
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the crime if the convict exhibits good conduct and a tendency to reform, ensuring the maintenance of family ties is critical.
Parole cannot be rejected solely for heinous nature of offence; must consider good conduct, reformation tendency, family ties maintenance, and absence of threat to public order or society.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
Parole cannot be denied solely for heinous offence; must be based on endangering state security or public order. Good conduct, agricultural need, local support warrant grant despite non-recommendatio....
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
