IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, RAKESH KAINTHLA, JJ.
Narayan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 11599 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Parole - The petitioner sought parole for 42 days, which was initially denied on the grounds of not owning land. The court found this reasoning inadequate, emphasizing the importance of maintaining family and social ties for rehabilitation. The Supreme Court's observations in Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan were cited to highlight the objectives of parole, including reformation and societal reintegration. (Paras 4, 5, 11, 17, 19, 22)
(B) Parole - Conditions and considerations - The court reiterated that not all prisoners are suitable for parole, and the decision must balance public safety with the rehabilitative purpose of parole. The petitioner was granted parole despite his conviction, as he was not deemed a hardened criminal. (Paras 19, 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 IPC, applied for parole, which was denied based on the claim that his son would manage agricultural activities. The petitioner provided evidence of being an agriculturist.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the rejection of parole and directed the respondents to grant parole for 42 days, subject to conditions.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the reasons for denying parole and the criteria for determining a hardened criminal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mere conviction does not classify a prisoner as a hardened criminal, and parole should be granted to facilitate family and social ties.
Result: Petition allowed.
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. 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; or
(ii) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, sister's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or
(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; or
(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; and
(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 must receive due weightage while they are undergoing sentence of imprisonment.
17. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that amongst the various grounds on which parole can be granted, the most important ground, which stands out, is that a prisoner should be allowed to maintain family and social ties. For this purpose, he has to come out fo
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 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 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 crime if the convict exhibits good conduct and a tendency to reform, ensuring the maintenance of family ties is critical.
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.