Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, RAKESH KAINTHLA
Narayan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
The request made by the petitioner for releasing him on parole has been turned down by the respondents constraining him to file the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
“(i) that the impugned rejection letter dated 3.9.2024, Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) that the respondents may kindly be directed to grant parole to the petitioner for 42 days.”
2. Initially the objection raised by the respondents was that since the petitioner was not possessed or owner of any land in his name, therefore, he is not entitled to grant of parole.However, the petitioner has placed on record relevant revenue record evincing his being an agriculturist.
3. The only reason that was recorded by the respondents for refusing the grant of parole was that the agricultural activities would be carried out on behalf of the petitioner by his son.
4. Obviously such reason cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, more particularly, in light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with object of grant of parole in Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC55, the relevant observations whereof read as under:-
“11. The
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 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....
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.
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....
A single conviction does not automatically classify an individual as a hardened criminal; rehabilitation and maintaining family ties are essential for granting parole.
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 denied solely based on the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
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.
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
