Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Gajender Singh @ Pintu - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Others - Respondents
CWP No. 917 of 2025
Decided On : 03-02-2025
(A) Prisons Act - Section 6 - Parole application - The petitioner sought parole to visit family, which was initially denied on grounds of heinous crime and potential absconding - The court emphasized that denial of parole cannot solely be based on the nature of the crime, but must consider security and public order - The District Magistrate's report lacked sufficient justification for denial - The court referenced previous judgments establishing the right to maintain family ties and the reformative purpose of parole - The petitioner was ultimately granted parole for 28 days with conditions. (Paras 4, 17, 19, 27)
(B) Right to live with dignity - The court reiterated that prisoners retain constitutional rights, including the right to live with dignity, which encompasses maintaining family connections. (Paras 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, convicted of a heinous crime, applied for parole to visit his ailing parents and family, which was denied by authorities citing potential risks. The court found the denial unjustified.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the application for parole could not be rejected solely based on the nature of the crime and ordered the petitioner to be released on parole for 28 days.
Issues: The main issues included whether the nature of the crime justified the denial of parole and the adequacy of the District Magistrate's report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grounds for denying parole must be clearly established and cannot rely solely on the nature of the crime; maintaining family ties is a significant consideration.
Result: Petition allowed; the petitioner is granted parole for 28 days.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner filed an application for seeking parole on the ground that he intended to visit his aged parents, wife and children. They could not visit Nahan due to the considerable distance between their home and Nahan. This application was sent to the Superintendent of Police, District Meerut, who found the averment contained in the application regarding the illness of the petitioner’s father to be correct. He also found that the petitioner had an aged mother, a young wife and two children. He submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous offence and he would abscond in case of his release on parole. District Magistrate Meerut, stated in his report that in view of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, the petitioner should not be released on bail. Director General of Prisons andCorrectional Services (respondent No.2) rejected the application of the petitioner vide letter dated 24.01.2025 on the ground that he had committed a heinous crime and would not surrender if released on parole.
2. The petitioner filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to supply a copy of the communication and release him on parole for a period of 28 days. The State has filed the instructions/status report informing the Court that the application filed by the applicant seeking parole was rejected during the pendency of the proceedings.
3. Heard.
4. The prayer of parole was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence, which is no ground for denying parole to the convict. It was laid down by this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3599 that the application for parole can be rejected on the grounds of endangering the security of the State or maintenance of law and order. It was observed:
“17. For rejection of an application for parole, there are two grounds set out in Section 6 of the Act. Firstly, in case a prisoner is released, he will likely to endanger the security of the State. Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence committed under Section 302 IPC. But, in no way, it could be inferred that he is likely to endanger the security of the State and even if so, the State has got enormous powers to put restrictions on the petitioner to protect the Security of the State. The second ground is maintenance of public order. In this regard, in the response made by the District Magistrate, there is no reference as to whether he laid threat to the public order.
18. When these two grounds, set out in Section 6 of the Act are not reflected or mirrored in the report of the District Magistrate, we have to presume that the District Magistrate has given its report without application of mind. When a provision or a statute directs an officer to do a particular job in a particular manner, it shall be the duty of that officer to do the said job in that particular manner only. When a District Magistrate is directed to make a report on the basis of assessment in an objective manner, he shall do it in that manner only.
19. Further, the rejection by the Government or the officer authorized by the Government should be on two grounds, namely, when it is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order, which are lacking in the instant case.
20. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, UT Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 : AIR 1981 SC 746, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Marshal has aptly said and we quote. “I have previously stated my views that a prisoner does not shed his basic constitutional rights at the prison gate and I fully support the court's holding that the interest of inmate.”
21. In Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295, it has been held that life means more than mere animal existence. Right to live is not restricted to mere animal existence. It means something more than just physical survival.
22. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 2
Denial of parole cannot be based solely on the nature of the crime; it must consider security and public order, emphasizing the importance of maintaining family ties.
Parole applications cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the crime; substantial evidence of threat to security or public order is required for rejection.
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 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 for heinous nature of offence; requires specific proof of threat to state security or public order, emphasizing reformation, family ties, and good prison conduct over c....
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 the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
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 crime if the convict exhibits good conduct and a tendency to reform, ensuring the maintenance of family ties is critical.
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
