Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Sachin Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| 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 petiti
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 eve....
Releasing authority must independently assess parole applications beyond district non-recommendation; good conduct prisoners entitled to temporary release for family ties despite serious offence, abs....
Parole cannot be denied solely based on objections from the victim's family; solid evidence is required to substantiate claims of danger or public disorder.
Parole rejection invalid if solely based on offence nature without evidence of threat to state security or public order; releasing authority must independently assess good conduct and reform potentia....
Parole cannot be denied solely for heinous offence; must be based on endangering state security or public order. Good conduct, agricultural need, local support warrant grant despite non-recommendatio....
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.
Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the conviction; maintaining family ties and demonstrating good conduct are paramount for rehabilitation and reform.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
