Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for directing respondent No. 2 to grant parole to him. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in F.I.R. No. 260 of 2018, dated 01.09.2018, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner is undergoing his sentence in Lala Lajpat Rai District and Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P. He has spent seven years in prison. He applied for parole to do agricultural work and to maintain social ties with his family members. His application was rejected, stating that his release on parole would be detrimental to the security of the area. The petitioner has satisfactory conduct in jail, and the Panchayat Pardhan has also recommended his parole. The order passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to the provisions of the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, (Prisoners Act) and the Rules fram
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 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 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 is a conditional release aimed at the reformation of convicts, and denial based solely on non-recommendation by authorities without substantial justification is impermissible.
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.
Parole serves to maintain family ties and facilitate rehabilitation; denial must be justified by substantial evidence of risk to public order or security.
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
