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 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
