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.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Petitioner herein, who at present is lodged in District Jail Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, for his having been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 366-A of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 20 years under Section 4 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, in terms of judgment dated 19.04.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Special Court (POCSO),Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main reliefs:-

“a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.01.2026;

b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing release of the petitioner on parole for the permissible period under the Rules, on such terms and conditions as deemed fit.”

2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties clearly reveals that sole ground taken by the respondents for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole is that family of the victim-prosecutrix is opposed to the same and there is an apprehension that, in the event the petitioner is granted the benefit of parole, he may cause harm to the victim- prosecutrix as well as her family. Besides above, local Panchayat has also raised a similar ground as has been raised by the family of the victim-prosecutrix, as noted hereinabove. Since it is not in dispute that jail authorities have recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of parole and having taken note of the good conduct of the petitioner during his stay in jail for four years and two months, the sole question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand, is that “whether request for grant of parole can be denied on account of objection raised by the aggrieved party and the further apprehension that the same may also create law and order problem.

3. Issue is no more res integra, rather stands decided by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.414 of 2020, titled as Mrs. Kavita Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and others along with connected matters, decided on 25.06.2020, which reads as under:

“4. Now the moot question is whether the request for grant of parole cannot be accepted only on account of objection by the aggrieved party and on further apprehension that the same may also create law and order problem.

5. The issue is no longer res integra insofar as this Court is concerned and was recently considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMP No. 3970 of 2020 in CWP No. 2931 of 2019, titled ‘Mrs. Har Dei versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others’, decided on 03.06.2020, wherein like the present case, the request for grant of parole was being opposed by the respondents only on the ground that the offence committed was heinous one and in case the parole is granted, the same is likely to create law and order problem and lastly the grant of parole was also rejected as the family of the victim had objected for the same.

6. It was in this background that this Court held as under:

2. Section 6 of the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, reads as follows:

“6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases .- Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfted that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.”

3. Needless to say that as per Section 6, the release must not endanger the securi