Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., RANJAN SHARMA
Ritesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 precede
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.
Point of Law : Supreme Court held that merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society ar....
Point of Law : If a person commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing a crime, he ceases to be a human being and that he can be deprived of those aspects of life which constitute human di....
The subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned in evaluating parole requests and the lack of relevance of cited judgments to the petitioner's case.
Parole is a concession for good behavior, not a right, and must be granted with consideration of rehabilitation, irrespective of family objections, unless supported by independent evaluation.
Parole should be granted to facilitate rehabilitation and maintain family ties, and a mere conviction does not classify a prisoner as a hardened criminal.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on objections from the victim's family; solid evidence is required to substantiate claims of danger or public disorder.
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
