The court emphasized that the reasoning for denying parole must consider the convict's family situation and the rehabilitative purpose of parole, as established in precedent.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 31.12.2024 [Annexure P-3], passed by the Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the prayer for parole of petitioner had been rejected.

2. The ground as such is that the concerned District Magistrate has not recommended the parole case with the reasoning that the convict’s family is residing jointly and his two brothers are capable to perform agricultural work, as per the report received from the District Magistrate, Unnav, District Unnav, Uttar Pradesh dated 06.11.2024 [Annexure R-4]. A perusal of the said report would go on to show that only on the ground that the land is joint and there were two elder siblings, the relief as such for cultivation of the land and for agricultural work, the parole has been rejected.

3. We are unable to subscribe to the reasoning which was given by the District Magistrate, which has also been accepted by the respondent-Director General of Police, Prison and Correctional Services, especially keeping in view the fact that he is well aware of the purpose of parole, which is also reformative in nature. The binding precedent of Apex Court in Asfaq Versus State of Rajasthan and Others, (2017) 15 SCC 55, has held that convicts have a right to breathe fresh air even for a short period to maintain their links with the society, which is for the purpose of their rehabilitation.

4. The present case is a typical case where stereotype orders are being passed by the respondents without keeping these aspects in mind. On the third occasion the petitioner has to approach for the relief in question, who is undergoing imprisonment for life on account of his conviction in FIR No.7 of 2016 dated 20.01.2016 and sentence awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan on 27.11.2019. The petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for 8 years 8 months and 19 days as per the custody certificate dated 04.01.2025 [Annexure P-1]. He obtained parole for 2 months and 10 days on earlier occasion.

5. Apparently, against the first rejection on 25.03.2021, the petitioner had filed CWP No.1636 of 2022, which was decided on 10.05.2022 [Annexure P-4] in his favour, since the rejection was on the ground that his relief of parole will send a wrong impression to the society. By a detailed order the said directions were issued and the petitioner was released on parole for28 days.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for parole again for the purpose of agricultural work and also to meet his father/family members and his case had also been recommended by the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. However, the same was rejected, vide order dated 04.07.2023, on the ground that the petitioner may flee and abscond. This Court while keeping in view the legal position and the fact that his conduct was good and that he had already been released earlier and nothing adverse was reported, had allowed the petitioner on 16.10.2023 for parole of 42 days. A period of more than 1½ years have expired since such benefit, as it is also clear from the response of the State and apparently the petitioner had thereafter applied for parole on 16.08.2024, but the State had rejected his request on31.12.2024.

7. Resultantly, we are of the opinion that reasoning given as such by the State does not take into the aspect of another helping hand in the joint family, which is an aspect which has not been kept in mind and which cannot be measured in terms of units.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, in the following terms:-

(i) Order dated 31.12.2024 [Annexure P-3], rejecting the request of the petitioner for parole, is quashed and set-aside.

(ii) Respondents are directed to re-consider the case and to extend the concession of parole to the petitioner, for a period of 42 days; on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satis