JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

The petitioner, a convict, has come up before this Court, in the instant petition, against the denial of parole, seeking the following relief(s):-

(i) “Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no 2 to grant parole to the petitioner, in a time bound manner, as per law laid down therefor.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX:

2(i). Case of the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Chuni Lal and one Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Pala Ram, both resident of Village Nirwana Khas, Post Office Yol, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP) were involved in FIR No 120 of 2015. They faced trial and both were convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra on 30.07.2022 under Section 376-D, 354, 506, 201 of IPC and Section 6 and 18 of the POCSO Act, to undergo imprisonment for twenty years and to pay fine of Rs. 7000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. It is averred that both the accused were released on bail during trial. However, on conviction and sentence, they were taken to custody. After having undergone a total sentence of one year, ten months and twenty one days, in Lala Lajpat Rai Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, (HP), the present petitioner applied for parole on 30.5.2023, for 42 days, for agricultural purposes and also to meet his family members.

2 (ii). The request of the petitioner for parole, was turned down, by the Respondent no 2 in August 2023, (referred to the Instructions submitted in case of co- accused), due to non-recommendation of his case by the District Magistrate concerned. It is averred that the impugned order has been passed without furnishing the grounds /material leading to the rejection of his request ; and by mechanically following the report of the Superintendent of Police concerned ; and when, the District Magistrate has neither “resorted to an independent and impartial application of mind” nor “formed the requisite opinion” based on entire material on record either for accepting the request or for refusing the same and in these circumstances, the present petition was filed assailing the order passed in August 2023, refusing parole.

3. STAND OF RESPONDENTS:

This Court issued notices to the respondents on 28.09.2023 directing them to file the reply within three weeks. Thereafter, the case was listed today {on 19.10.2023}, when, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General has furnished the Instructions dated 18.10.2023, and states that the instructions furnished in Civil Writ Petition filed in case of co-accused i.e. CWP No 5978 of 2023 titled as Ramesh Kumar versus State, may be read as part and parcel of this case. A perusal of the Instructions reveal that the request of the petitioner for parole was turned down, in view of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police Kangra to the District Magistrate Kangra on 5.7.2023, based on the objection raised by the brother of the victim, Annexure C (colly). However, in the interests of justice and keeping in view the object of parole, we deem it fit and proper to examine the rejection orders passed in August 2023 (supra).

4. We have heard Ms Jai Prabha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State and have gone through the records.

5. LEGAL POSITION:

5(i). At the very outset, it would be relevant to take note of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asfaq Versus State of Rajasthan and others, (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 55. The Apex Court has enunciated the object of granting parole to a convict. It has been emphasized that the parole is granted with the objective of reformation of a convict. It has been held that the convicts have a right to breathe fresh air albeit for short periods. The main purpose of parole is to provide humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails so that such convicts can prepare not only to solve their personal a