Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Om Prakash - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondent
CWP No. 13185 of 2025
Decided On : 22-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General

Parole cannot be rejected solely for heinous offence nature or reoffending apprehension if jail conduct satisfactory and reformation evident; must balance family ties, rehabilitation against public order risks.

Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 - Section 6 - Parole - Not a right but privilege - Rejection solely on ground that offence heinous or prisoner habitual offender likely to reoffend invalid if conduct in jail satisfactory and shows tendency to reform - Purpose to maintain family/social ties, breathe fresh air, promote reformation/rehabilitation - Mere nature of offence not sufficient ground for denial, especially post long incarceration/good behaviour; consider if threat to state security/public order - Humanistic approach essential, balancing reformation with deterrence/prevention. (Paras 4-12)

(B) Parole - Distinction from furlough - Granted for specified exigencies (family illness, marriage, agriculture, social ties) after portion of sentence served; conditional on good behaviour - Furlough for good conduct remission, breaking monotony. (Paras 7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner convicted for offence under NDPS Act, sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and fine, undergone over 4 years 5 months sentence, applied for 28 days parole to meet ailing family members and fulfil social responsibilities - Application rejected as involved in heinous crime, habitual offender likely to reoffend - Conduct in jail satisfactory.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed - Petitioner released on parole for 28 days subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of like amount, undertaking good conduct and surrender post-parole - Probation Officer to monitor; jail superintendent may impose further conditions.

Issues: Whether parole rejection sustainable merely on nature of offence/heinous crime and apprehension of repetition despite satisfactory jail conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: Parole denial on mere offence nature without assessing specific threat to state security/public order or actual recidivism risk arbitrary - Good conduct, reformation signs, family needs outweigh general apprehension; mere repetition of heinous crime label insufficient - Prisoner retains human dignity rights, opportunity for social links essential for rehabilitation.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. parole sought for family; rejected over heinous crime, recidivism risk. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parole aids reformation, family ties; distinguished from furlough. (Para 3 , 6 , 7)
3. petitioner challenges rejection; state cites reoffending likelihood. (Para 4 , 5)
4. previous ruling: heinous offence alone no bar if reforming. (Para 8)
5. supreme court: deny parole not solely for heinous crime. (Para 9)
6. good conduct overrides offence nature for parole grant. (Para 10 , 11)
7. parole allowed for 28 days with bonds, conditions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking an appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant 28 days’ parole to the petitioner. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years, pay a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. The petitioner has undergone a total sentence of 04 years, 05 months and 25 days till 12.6.2025. He applied for a grant of parole on 11.12.2024 to meet his ailing parents, grandparents and fulfil his social responsibilities. The application was rejected. The rejection is contrary to the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has undergone a sentence of 04 years, 07 months and 14 days as on 31.7.2025. His conduct inside the Jail was satisfactory. He applied for 28 days’ parole on 11.12.2024. The application was forwarded to the District Authorities, who did not recommend the grant of parole because the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous crime and was a habitual offender. He would commit a similar offence in case of his release on parole. Parole is not a right but a privilege. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

4. Mr Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the rejection of the parole after considering the nature of the offence is bad. The petitioner cannot be detained in custody simply because he was involved in the commission of a heinous offence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional 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 the offence while on parole. Parole was rejected on legitimate grounds. Therefore, it was 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 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan , (2017) 15 SCC 55: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 390: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1092, that parole grants an opportunity to the convict to maintain his links with society. Convicts must breathe fresh air for at least some time. Parole should not be denied to the prisoners if they maintain good conduct during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves. It wa