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.

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 framed thereunder. Hence, the present petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner had undergone a sentence of 7 years, 3 months and 3 days as on 09.12.2025, excluding remissions. The petitioner applied for parole on 05.12.2024 for agricultural work. The application was forwarded to the District Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala and Superintendent of Police, District Kangra, H.P. However, the petitioner’s case was not recommended by the District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. As per the report of the Superintendent of Police, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., the presence of the petitioner was dangerous to the security of the area. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature. The recommendations of the District Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala are to be preferred to the report of the Panchayat. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 2 erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application for parole on the ground that the petitioner’s release was dangerous to the security of the area. The application could only have been rejected on the ground specified in the Prisoners’ Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. The nature of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining parole. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole.

5. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the District Authorities had not recommended the grant of parole to the petitioner because his release on parole would adversely affect the security of the area. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It was laid