Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 7127 of 2025
Decided On : 04-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prajwal Busta
For the Respondent: Jitender Sharma

Parole cannot be denied solely for heinous nature of offence; requires specific proof of threat to state security or public order, emphasizing reformation, family ties, and good prison conduct over crime gravity.

Headnote:(A) Parole - Grant of - Life convict under murder offence seeking parole for 45 days to meet elderly parents and children - Rejection order citing heinous nature of crime, criminal mindedness, and vague assertions of endangering state security and public order set aside - Held: Nature of offence alone not ground for denial; rejection must specifically address statutory grounds of threat to state security or public order - No evidence of recidivism or habitual offending; parole essential for maintaining family and social ties, promoting reformation - Granted for 28 days with bonds and conditions. (Paras 2,3,9,11,12)

(B) Parole - Purpose and grounds - Temporary release to afford relief in family exigencies, maintain societal links, enable breathing fresh air subject to good conduct and reformation tendency - Distinguished from furlough; not to be denied ipso facto for serious crimes unless showing threat to society or law and order - Humanistic approach balancing deterrence, prevention, retribution with reformation. (Paras 8-25)

Facts of the case:
Life convict, having served over six years, applied for parole to attend to elderly parents without caregiver and meet growing children. Rejected based on district authorities' reports highlighting heinous crime of burning wife alive, local objections from panchayat head and neighbours, and potential disturbance to public peace.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; convict released on parole for 28 days upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of like amount, with undertaking for good conduct, probation supervision, and surrender post-parole; jail superintendent at liberty to impose further conditions.

Issues: Whether parole can be rejected solely on heinous nature of offence; sufficiency of district reports asserting danger to state security and public order without specifics.

Ratio Decidendi: Parole embodies reformative theory of punishment, prioritizing family/social ties and rehabilitation over mere retribution; denial requires concrete evidence of recidivism or societal threat, not vague generalizations or offence gravity alone; convict retains human dignity rights, entitled to temporary release for personal/family exigencies if conduct indicates reform. Result : Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. life convict's parole rejected over heinous murder, public order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments: family ties vs. security threats considered. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. parole aids reformation, family ties, societal links. (Para 8)
4. heinous crime alone insufficient; needs specific threat proof. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. parole granted 28 days with bonds, supervision. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition to set aside the order dated 31.1.2025 and to release the petitioner on parole for 45 days.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner filed an application for parole on the ground that he wanted to meet his parents and children, however, the prayer was rejected vide order dated 31.1.2025 (Annexure P-2). There is no one to take for the petitioner's elderly parents. The petitioner also wants to meet his children, who are growing up without the care and affection of their father. The parole cannot be rejected on the grounds of the nature of the crime. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, the order rejecting the parole be set aside, and the petitioner be released on parole.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted by learned Additional Sessions, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner has undergone the substantive imprisonment of six years, five months and seventeen days as on 30.4.2025. He applied for parole on August 31, 2024, for a period of 28 days. The reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Mandi were called. District Magistrate, Mandi stated that the presence of the petitioner is likely to endanger the security of the State and the maintenance of public order. Petitioner has murdered his wife. The application for parole was rejected based on the reports of the District Authorities. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Ms. Prajwal Basta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Ms. Prajwal Basta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the parole was rejected on the ground that the nature of the offence is heinous, which is an irrelevant consideration. The petitioner wants to meet his family members, and is entitled to parole as per the Rules. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole. She relied upon the judgment of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:3061 in support of her submission.

6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Mandi reported that release of the petitioner’s parole would result in disturbance of public peace. Pradhan, Gram Panchayat and the neighbours objected to the release of the petitioner. The petitioner would endanger the public order; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions 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. If they maintain good conduct during incarceration and demonstrate a tendency to reform, parole should not be denied to them. It was observed at page 60:-

“10. In the first instance, it wo