Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
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
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 the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
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 objections from the victim's family; solid evidence is required to substantiate claims of danger or public disorder.
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 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....
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
