Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ajay Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
State of H.P. & Another - Respondents
CWP No. 873 of 2025
Decided On : 31-01-2025
(A) Prisons Act - Section 6 - Parole application - Rejection of parole application on grounds of potential criminal activity and endangering public order - Court emphasized that rejection must be based on clear evidence of threat to security or public order, which was lacking in this case. (Paras 17-19)
(B) Constitutional Rights - Right to live with dignity - Court reiterated that prisoners retain constitutional rights, including the right to maintain family ties and seek parole for personal and social rehabilitation. (Paras 20-26)
(C) Reformative Theory - The court highlighted the importance of parole as a means for rehabilitation and maintaining social connections, stating that serious crimes alone do not justify automatic denial of parole. (Paras 25-26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought parole for 28 days to meet his family, but the application was rejected due to concerns about reoffending.
Findings of Court:
The rejection was deemed unjustified as it lacked proper grounds related to security or public order.
Issues: The main issues were whether the rejection of parole was justified based on the potential for reoffending and the adequacy of the District Magistrate's report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection of parole must be based on substantial evidence of threat to security or public order, and not merely on the nature of the crime.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted parole for 28 days under specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking parole. It appears from the record that the petitioner had applied for parole vide application dated 08.04.2024 addressed to the Director General of Prisons with the averments that his parents were aged, his wife and two children were residing at home and he wanted to meet his family members for 28 days. Superintendent of Police, Shimla and Additional District Magistrate (Law and Order), Shimla, H.P. reported that the grounds of parole were correct but there was an apprehension of involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities again. The Director General of Prisons rejected the application vide order dated 28.10.2024 because of non-recommendation of the District Authorities.
2. Heard.
3. The application for parole has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous crime and he is likely to commit the same offence again in case of release on parole. 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 o 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 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597, which was followed in Francis Coralie v. Delhi Administration, supra it has been held that right to live does not mean mere confinement to physical existence but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.
23. Seeking parole/remission/pre-mature release or furlough is not a right of a detinue. However, the same has to be considered in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The consideration should always keep in view the rights of the prisoners. The release of a prisoner from jail for a short period has to be considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only t
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.
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 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 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 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 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 based on the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
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.
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.
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
