Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Baldev – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
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 determi
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 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 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
