IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
Sumit Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
CWP No. 926 of 2025
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Parole - The court quashed the order denying parole to the petitioner, emphasizing that a single conviction does not automatically classify an individual as a hardened criminal. The court highlighted the importance of rehabilitation and maintaining family ties as grounds for granting parole. (Paras 3, 17, 22)
(B) Parole - Definition and Purpose - Parole is defined as a conditional release of prisoners for good behavior, allowing them to maintain family and social ties, which is essential for their reformation and reintegration into society. (Paras 11, 18)
(C) Public Interest - The court recognized the need to balance the rights of convicts with public safety, stating that habitual offenders should be carefully evaluated before granting parole. (Paras 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought parole for 42 days, which was initially denied due to objections from the victim's family. The court found no substantial evidence to support these objections.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition, directing the release of the petitioner on parole for 42 days, subject to conditions.
Issues: The main issues included whether a single conviction for a serious crime categorizes an individual as a hardened criminal and the criteria for granting parole.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a single conviction does not automatically classify a convict as a hardened criminal, and emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and maintaining family ties.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
“i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quash and set aside Annexure P-2 dated 26.12.2024, in the interest of justice and fair play.
ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for the period of 42 days, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. The respondents have placed on record the instructions dated 06.03.2025, which go to indicate that the local police have not recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of parole to the petitioner because the victim’s mother, Smt. Ramkali, has objected to the release of petitioner stating that he might threaten or attempt to cause harm to her and her family. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate such allegations.
3. Additionally, it is argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner is a hardened criminal as he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC. However, we find no force even in this contention. Merely because the petitioner has been convicted once for a serious and heinous offence does not make him as a hardened criminal, as has already been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with object of grant of parole in Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55, the relevant observations whereof read as under:-
“11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough. A parole can be defined as conditional release of prisoners i.e. an early release of a prisoner, conditional on good behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It can also be defined as a form of conditional pardon by which the convict is released before the expiration of his term. Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition that parolee regularly reports to a supervising officer for a specified period. Such a release of the prisoner on parole can also be temporarily on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it is to be treated as mere suspension of the sentence for time being, keeping the quantum of sentence intact. Release on parole is designed to afford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified exigencies. Such paroles are normally granted in certain situations some of which may be as follows:-
(i) member of the prisoner's family has died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill;
(ii) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, sister's son or daughter is to be celebrated;
(iii) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation of his land or his father's undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner;
(iv) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause;
(v) parole can be granted only after a portion of sentence is already served;
(vi) if conditions of parole are not abided by the parolee he may be returned to serve his sentence in prison, such conditions may be such as those of committing a new offence;
(vii) parole may also be granted on the basis of aspects related to health of convict himself.
15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the period of sentence or for rest of his life in case he is a life convict. It is in this context that his release from jail for a short period has to be considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family problems but also to maintain his links with society. Convicts too must breathe fresh air for at least some time provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens. Thus, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for good of societies
A single conviction does not automatically classify an individual as a hardened criminal; rehabilitation and maintaining family ties are essential for granting parole.
The main legal point established is that the denial of parole should not be solely based on the nature of the offence, and the authorities must consider the rehabilitation and reformation of convicts....
Parole should be granted to facilitate rehabilitation and maintain family ties, and a mere conviction does not classify a prisoner as a hardened criminal.
The nature of the offence alone cannot be a sole ground for denying parole. The authorities should consider rehabilitation, continuity of life, and constructive hopes for convicts and prisoners in de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere conviction for a serious and heinous offence cannot be the sole ground for denying parole, and that parole should be granted by takin....
The discretionary nature of parole, the importance of rehabilitation and reformation of convicts, and the need to balance the interests of the convict and the society.
Parole cannot be rejected solely for heinous offence nature or reoffending apprehension if jail conduct satisfactory and reformation evident; must balance family ties, rehabilitation against public o....
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....
Parole cannot be denied solely based on objections from the victim's family without substantial evidence; it's essential to balance prisoner rights with public safety.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.