Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J., Ranjan Sharma, J.
Kashish Gulyani - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. - Respondents
CWP No : 2609 of 2025
Decided On : 11-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 22 - Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 - Sections 3 and 6 - Parole application - Convict sought temporary release on parole for 28 days after serving 2 years, 7 months, and 25 days of a 10-year sentence - Rejection of parole application by authorities based on non-recommendation by District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police deemed unsustainable - Court emphasized the need for a holistic view and adherence to statutory provisions regarding parole. (Paras 7, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Parole - Concept and purpose - Parole is a conditional release aimed at the reformation of convicts, allowing them to maintain family ties and reintegrate into society - The court reiterated that mere possibility of absconding is insufficient to deny parole, especially when the convict has shown good conduct. (Paras 5, 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, convicted under the NDPS Act, sought parole to meet family members after being incarcerated for over two years. His application was rejected based on concerns about public safety and non-recommendation by authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection order arbitrary and lacking in proper justification, emphasizing the importance of family ties and rehabilitation.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the rejection of the parole application and the interpretation of statutory provisions regarding parole.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection of the parole application was not justified as it did not adhere to the statutory requirements and failed to consider the convict's good conduct.
Result: The rejection order was quashed, and the petitioner was granted parole for 28 days, subject to conditions.
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 stated that the petitioner submitted an application for parole for 28 days on 29.08.2004, (Annexure P-2), for meeting the family members but no action was taken on the said application and therefore, instant petition was filed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:
3. Upon filing of the instant petition on 24.02.2025, the matter was listed on 25.02.2025 when, this Court directed the competent authority to take a decision on the parole application dated 29.08.2024 [Annexure P-2], with directions to file reply to the instant petition.
3(i). Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 25.02.2025, the Respondent No.2-Director of Prison and Correctional Services Shimla has filed a reply-affidavit dated 04.04.2025.
Perusal of the reply-affidavit admits the factual narration of events that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 11.10.2023 under Section 22 of ND&PS Act, by the Learned Special Judge-II, Kullu. Reply-affidavit states that the fine amount has not been deposited by the petitioner till 25.05.2025. It is averred in the reply that the conduct/behavior of the petitioner in jail has been found good as per the Custody Certificate [Annexure R-2].
3(ii). Reply indicates that the petitioner applied for parole for 28 days on 29.8.2024 [Annexure P-2] and the matter was processed thereafter. It is averred that upon receipt of application for parole District Magistrate, Alwar, [Rajasthan] had sought a report from Superintendent of Police, Alwar [Raj], who reported on 26.11.2024 [Annexure R-3/T] that in case petitioner is granted parole then, there is no guarantee that petitioner will surrender after completion of parole period and based on this possibility, the District Magistrate Alwar [Rajasthan] forwarded his non-recommendation on 27.12.2024 [Annexure R-3/T] to competent authority-Respondent No.2, in the instant case.
3(iii). Based on the reports of Superintendent of Police and resultant non-recommendation by District Magistrate, Alwar [Rajasthan] vide Annexure R-3 supra, the competent authority-Respondent No 2 passed an order on 18.03.2025 [Annexure R-4] rejecting the claim of petitioner for parole, due to non-recommendation of case by District Authorities that in case the petitioner is released on parole there is possibility of his absconding from parole. The communication dated 18.03.2025 [Annexure R-4] rejecting the parole request, reads as under:-
Annexure R-4
Dated 18.3.2024
“No.4-45/2025-Jails-3477-1593
Government of Himachal Pradesh
“Directorate of Prisons & Correctional
Services”
From
The Director General
Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh.
To
The Superintendent Jail,
Model Central Jail,
Nahan, District Sirmour, (H.P).
Dated Shimla-171009, the
Subject:- Regarding parole case of convict Kashish Gulyani S/o Sh. Prem Lal.
Memo,
Reference to letter No.163 date
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
