Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Sachin Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondents
CWP No. :10750 of 2025
Decided On : 12-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit K. Sehgal, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General.

Rejection of parole based solely on pending FIR and victim's objection held arbitrary; mere FIR registration not ground to deny; grant parole with conditions to uphold reformation and family ties even for serious child sexual offences.

Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act & Rules - Parole - Convict sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms for offences under Section 354-B IPC, Sections 6 and 14(3) POCSO Act, Sections 66-E and 67-B IT Act applied for 42 days parole for agricultural purpose - Application rejected on grounds of objection by victim's mother fearing harm and FIR registered during previous parole under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC - Held, rejection arbitrary and unsustainable; mere registration of cognizable offence per se not ground to deny parole; purpose of parole is to maintain family and social ties, enable reformation; apprehensions addressable by imposing conditions like no contact with victim family - Order quashed, parole granted for 42 days on furnishing personal bond and sureties. (Paras 14-24)

(B) Parole - Considerations - Not to be denied ipso facto for serious or heinous crimes; assess tendency to reoffend vs. reformation; even life convicts entitled for temporary release to solve personal/family problems, breathe fresh air; balance public interest of security with rehabilitation; stricter scrutiny for serious offences but mere FIR or objection not absolute bar. (Paras 14-22)

Facts of the case:
Convict undergoing sentence of over five years applied for 42 days parole for agricultural purpose after previous rejection; local panchayat members and villagers gave no objection; authorities rejected citing victim's mother apprehension of harm and FIR during prior parole for alleged scuffle.

Findings of Court:
Rejection order dated 31st December, 2024 quashed; convict directed to be released on 42 days parole on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, undertaking no threat or contact with victim family, surrender on expiry; liberty to impose further conditions or cancel for breach.

Issues: Whether rejection of parole solely on pending FIR and victim's objection sustainable; scope of parole in serious sexual offences against children.

Ratio Decidendi: Parole promotes reformation by allowing maintenance of family/social ties; registration of FIR, absent conviction, not per se disqualification; conditions mitigate risks; guided by principles that society interests include convict rehabilitation without compromising public safety.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. parole rejection challenged as arbitrary and illegal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. opposition based on victim objection and prior fir. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. parole promotes reformation and social ties. (Para 14)
4. local support favors parole grant. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. pending fir no bar; conditions address fears. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. parole granted for 42 days with conditions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-Sachin Kumar has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs, amongst others:

“(i) The act, conduct and orders of the respondents, whereby the case of the petitioner for grant of parole was rejected may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the mandate of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act & Rules and may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law, justice and fairplay.

(ii) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents may kindly be directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of reasonable period, in the interest of law, justice and fairplay.”

2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., vide judgment, dated 7^th March, 2020, for the offences, punishable under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), Sections 6 & 14 (3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) and Sections 6 6-E and 67-B of the Information Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘IT Act’), and has been sentenced, as under:

Section	Sentence imposed
354-B IPC	rigorous imprisonment for three years and to Rs. pay a ﬁne of 5,000/-, with default sentence
6 of POCSO Act	rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and Rs. to pay a ﬁne of 50,000/-, with default sentence
14 (3) of POCSO Act	Life imprisonment and to pay a ﬁne of Rs. 1,00,000/- , with default sentence
66-E of IT Act	rigorous imprisonment for three years and to Rs. pay a ﬁne of 50,000/-, with default sentence
67-B of IT Act	rigorous imprisonment for three years and to Rs. pay a ﬁne of 1,00,000/-, with default sentence

3. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that while on parole, a scuffle took place and though, the petitioner, was innocent, but he came to know that on the basis of twisted fact, an FIR has been got registered against him, on 14^th January, 2024, under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The petitioner is stated to be on bail, in the said FIR.

4. The petitioner applied for grant of parole for a period of 42 days, by way of application, dated 3^rd July, 2024 (Annexure R-2/4) for agricultural purpose.

5. The said application of the petitioner is stated to have been rejected by respondent No. 2, on 31^st December, 2024, vide Annexure P-3, without assigning any justifiable reason.

6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order, by virtue of which, the request of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, has been rejected. A prayer has also been made to allow his request for parole.

7. When put to notice, the factual position, with regard to conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner, has not been disputed by the respondents.

8. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner had applied for grant of 42 days’ parole, on 3^rd July, 2024, for agricultural purpose.

9. According to the respondents, the request of the petitioner was duly forwarded to the District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. In pursuance of the same, District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, has not recommended the prayer of the petitioner, on the gr