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.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dated 11.8.2025 (Annexure P-3) and releasing the petitioner on parole for 28 days. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 16 years, pay a fine of Rs.2,80,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year in FIR No. 16 of 2023, dated 13.1.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, HP. The petitioner has completed more than two years, eight months and seventeen days in jail. He filed an application for parole on 24.3.2025 to meet his family members. Respondent No.2 objected to the grant of parole as the District Magistrate, Mandi has not recommended the parole based on the objection raised by Superintendent of Police, Mandi who has reported that the petitioner may re-engage in the supply of drugs. The rejection of the application is bad. The petitioner cannot be deprived of an opportunity to meet the relatives/family members. The nature of the offence was not relevant to determining the petitioner’s entitlement to parole. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted by learned Special Judge, (Family Court), Mandi, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sixteen years, pay a fine of Rs.2,80,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. The petitioner was undergoing imprisonment at Model Central Jail, Nahan, HP. The petitioner has undergone two years nine months and four-day substantive sentence as on 12.12.2025. His conduct inside the Jail was satisfactory. He filed an application for parole, which was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Mandi, HP, for recommendation/verification. District Magistrate, Mandi, stated that there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner’s family was unable to travel to Nahan to meet him. The reasons for seeking parole were not covered under the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act). Hence, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority. The grant of parole is a privilege and not a right, and a person can be released on parole after the satisfaction of the competent authority. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner’s case for parole was rejected without any justification. The petitioner has a right to meet his family members. They are unable to visit Nahan due to their poverty. The term ‘any other sufficient reasons’ should be liberally construed to enable the convict to join the mainstream and maintain the social ties. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order rejecting the parole be set-aside.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the competent authority went through the application filed by the petitioner and found that the ground on which the parole was being sought was not covered under the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and had ri