Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ranjeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh And Others - Respondents
CWP No. 12779 of 2025
Decided On : 25-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prince Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Releasing authority must independently assess parole applications beyond district non-recommendation; good conduct prisoners entitled to temporary release for family ties despite serious offence, absent specific threat to security or public order.

Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 - Sections 3(2)(d), 6 and Rule 3(2) - Parole - Application for 42 days parole rejected solely on non-recommendation by District Magistrate fearing repetition of narcotics offence - Conduct in jail satisfactory - Held, releasing authority not bound by district recommendation and must apply independent mind considering jail report - Rejection without application of mind unsustainable - Parole privilege to maintain family and social ties where good conduct and reform tendency shown - Nature of offence not sole ground for denial - Granted parole for 28 days subject to bonds and conditions. (Paras 11-17)

(B) Parole - Distinction from furlough and purpose - Conditional temporary release for exigencies like family ties, social links, reformation - To be denied only if endangers state security or public order or prisoner habitual offender likely to reoffend - Humanistic approach balancing rehabilitation with societal safety - No presumption of hardened criminal from single serious offence. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner convicted under NDPS Act and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine, undergone over 1 year 9 months with satisfactory behaviour, applied for 42 days parole to meet family members and maintain social ties - Application sent to district authorities who did not recommend fearing indulgence in narcotics trade - Rejected accordingly.

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

Issues: Whether parole rejection valid when solely based on district non-recommendation without releasing authority's independent assessment; entitlement to parole despite narcotics conviction and apprehension of reoffending; binding nature of district report under rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Releasing authority must exercise independent judgment on parole, not mechanically follow district recommendation - Good jail conduct entitles parole for family/social ties promoting reformation - Rejection grounds limited to state security or public order threats - Mere offence nature or vague apprehension insufficient.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. parole rejection despite good conduct and family ties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties argue parole on conduct vs purpose validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. parole promotes convict reformation and social links. (Para 8)
4. serious offence no bar if prisoner shows reformation. (Para 9)
5. releasing authority independently decides, unbound by district. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. rejection invalid for lacking application of mind. (Para 16)
7. 28-day parole ordered with bonds and supervision. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 23.04.2025 and a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for 42 days.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he was convicted in F.I.R. No.189/2014, registered at Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner has undergone more than one year and nine months of imprisonment. He applied for parole to meet his family members and to maintain social ties vide application dated 18.12.2024. The application was sent to the District Authorities, but they did not recommend the parole. Hence, the application was rejected. The ground of rejection is contrary to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. The conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory. Therefore, it was prayed that the petitioner be released on parole.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Sarkaghat, Camp at Jogindernagar, Himachal Pradesh for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) (b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- with default sentence. The petitioner has undergone the imprisonment of one year, ten months and sixteen days on 08.07.2025. His behaviour in jail was satisfactory. He applied for 42 days’ on parole on 18.12.2024. His application was sent to the District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala and the Superintendent of Police, Nurpur for verification. The District Magistrate, Kangra, at Dharamshala, H.P., did not recommend the parole. The local residents apprehended that the petitioner would indulge in the trade of narcotics in case of release on parole. The application for parole was rejected based on the recommendation of the District Authorities. Parole is a privilege and not a right. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr Prince Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Prince Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the conduct of the petitioner inside the jail was satisfactory. The parole was rejected on irrelevant grounds. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole.

6. Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State, submitted that the petitioner has sought parole to meet his mother; however, she stated that she was residing separately from the petitioner. The purpose of seeking the parole has been frustrated. 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