Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
C.W.P. No. 10319 of 2025
Decided On : 08-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Tarun K. Sharma
For the Respondents: Ajit Sharma

Parole cannot be rejected solely for heinous nature of offence; must consider good conduct, reformation tendency, family ties maintenance, and absence of threat to public order or society.

Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners Temporary Release Act, 1968 - Section 6 - Parole - Rejection of parole application solely on ground that offence is heinous not sustainable - Parole to be considered for maintaining family and social ties, affording opportunity for reformation - Prisoner entitled to temporary release if good conduct maintained, no threat to security of State or public order, and shows tendency to reform - Mere nature of offence, even serious, not ipso facto ground for denial unless habitual offender or recidivism risk established - District authorities' non-recommendation based only on offence gravity lacks application of mind. (Paras 3, 6, 8-12, 12.1)

(B) Parole vs Furlough - Parole conditional release for specified exigencies like family matters, agricultural needs; aims at rehabilitation - Granted after portion of sentence served, subject to good behaviour - Furlough as remission for long-term prisoners to break monotony - Both promote humanistic approach, but denial justified only for societal protection if prisoner likely to reoffend. (Paras 8, 11-22)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine; undergone over two years' sentence; applied for 28 days' parole to meet family and cultivate land; application rejected without justification, solely due to heinous nature of offence and non-recommendation by district authorities despite satisfactory jail conduct and no objections from locals.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; petitioner directed to be released on parole for twenty-eight days subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of like amount, with undertaking for good conduct and surrender; probation officer to monitor activities; jail superintendent at liberty to impose additional conditions.

Issues: Whether parole can be denied mechanically on ground of heinous offence without assessing prisoner's conduct, reformation potential, or specific risk to public order/security; validity of rejection absent reasoned application of statutory grounds under Section 6.

Ratio Decidendi: Parole provisions embody reformative theory of punishment; primary purpose to enable prisoners to maintain societal links and solve family issues - Denial permissible only if release endangers State security or public order, not merely because offence serious - Good jail conduct, absence of recidivism indicators, and local no-objection support grant of parole - Authorities must apply mind objectively per statutory criteria, not presume threat from offence nature alone.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. parole application rejected for heinous pocso offence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner asserts good conduct; state cites reoffending risk. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. parole aids reformation, family ties for good conduct prisoners. (Para 7 , 8)
4. offence nature alone cannot justify parole denial. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. parole granted for 28 days subject to conditions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 10.06.2025 and a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for four weeks.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he was convicted and sentenced in F.I.R. No.82/2019, registered at Police Station, Janjheli, District Mandi. He has been in custody since 2023 and has undergone two years and twenty-four days of substantive sentence as on 08.04.2025. He applied for parole in February 2025 to cultivate the land. However, his application was rejected without any justification in violation of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners Temporary Release Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act). The rejection of the parole is not justified. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO, Mandi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences, Act (POCSO) vide judgment dated 19.04.2024. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for twenty years, pay a fine of Rs.70,000/- with a default sentence. The petitioner has undergone two years and thirteen days of imprisonment as on 30.06.2025, excluding the remission. The petitioner applied for a 28 days’ parole to meet his family members. This request was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Mandi, for their recommendation. However, they did not recommend the petitioner's release on parole because the offence under the POCSO Act is heinous, which has a profound effect on society. The application was rejected because of non-recommendation by the District Authorities.

4. I have heard Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State.

5. Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner wanted to meet his family members, but his application was rejected by the respondents without any justification. The conduct of the petitioner inside the jail was satisfactory, and there was nothing adverse against him. He will not cause any damage to the public property or injury to any person during his release on parole. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole.

6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State, submitted that the petitioner's application was sent to the District Authorities for verification. Superintendent of Police, Mandi reported that the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner was heinous and he was likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on parole. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submission made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. 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, and parole should not be denied to them if they maintain good conduct during their imprisonment and show a tendency to reform themselves. It was observed at page 60:-

“10. In the first instance, it would be necessary to unders