Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Him Singh @ Hem Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondent
CWP No. 13187 of 2025
Decided On : 19-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General

Parole rejection invalid if solely based on offence nature without evidence of threat to state security or public order; releasing authority must independently assess good conduct and reform potential, not mechanically follow district reports.

Headnote:(A) H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 4, 6 and Rules, 1969 - Rule 3 - Parole - Cannot be denied solely on nature of offence under NDPS Act or without specific finding that release endangers state security or prejudicial to public order - Releasing authority must independently verify reports of district authorities and apply mind - Good conduct in prison, no local objections, satisfactory behaviour entitle to parole for family reasons to maintain social ties and aid reformation - Rejection mechanical and without basis set aside. (Paras 7-17)

(B) Parole - Reformative purpose - Opportunity to solve family problems, breathe fresh air, maintain links with society - Competing interests of deterrence weighed; habitual status or prior involvement insufficient absent recidivism evidence or threat assessment - Not ipso facto for serious offences. (Paras 19-25)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner convicted under NDPS Act, sentenced to 11 years rigorous imprisonment and fine, undergone about four years ten months; applied for 28 days parole to meet elderly parents; rejected relying on district report claiming habitual offender status, prior conviction (actually acquittal) and public order risk despite good conduct reports and no local objections.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; petitioner directed to be released on 28 days parole subject to personal and surety bonds, good conduct undertaking, supervision by probation officer; jail superintendent may impose further conditions.

Issues: Whether parole rejection valid absent threat to state security or public order; binding effect of district magistrate report on releasing authority; sufficiency of mere offence nature as ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Parole provisions humanistic for reformation; denial only on statutory grounds under Section 6 with objective assessment - No material showed release prejudicial; district report erroneous and unverified; releasing authority cannot abdicate to lower reports but must decide independently considering good conduct and reform tendency.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. ndps convict's parole application rejected despite service. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties contend on parole denial validity. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. parole aids reformation, family ties maintenance. (Para 7)
4. offence nature alone cannot deny parole. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. flawed reports require independent authority assessment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. parole granted conditionally for 28 days. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to grant 28 days’ parole to him. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted by learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. vide judgment dated 8.11.2025, passed in a Case arising out of FIR No. 139 of 2020, dated 10.9.2020, registered at Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offence an punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11 years, pay a fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year and one month. The petitioner has already undergone a total sentence of four years and ten months till 9.7.2025 as per the custody certificate. He applied for a parole of 28 days to meet his elderly parents. The prayer was rejected vide letter dated 10.6.2025. The respondents failed to exercise their constitutional obligation. Hence, the present petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the convicts in the State are released on parole under Sections 3 and 4 of the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and Rule 3 of the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969 (Prisoners Rules). The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. He has undergone a total imprisonment of four years, ten months and nine days as on 18.7.2025. His conduct and behaviour were found to be satisfactory. He applied for 28 days’ parole on 11.12.2024. His application was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Mandi, for their recommendation. Petitioner’s case was not recommended by the District Magistrate, Mandi, vide his letter dated 22.2.2025. The petitioner is a habitual offender, and he was also convicted in FIR No. 159 of 2018, registered at Police Station Baijnath, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The release of the petitioner would be dangerous to the security of the State and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Releasing Authority is bound by the recommendation made by the district authorities and cannot take an independent decision. The Releasing Authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner because the District Authorities had not recommended the petitioner’s case. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had applied for parole to meet his ailing parents and grand parents, but the Releasing authority wrongly rejected his application. The release of the petitioner could not have been denied on the ground that it would be prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The petitioner was involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, which has nothing to do with the security of the State. Therefore, he 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 petitioner was involved in the commission of a similar offence earlier, and he is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his