Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ramesh Kumar @ Rinku - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondents
CWP No. 13335 of 2025
Decided On : 31-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General

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-recommendations and family opposition.

Headnote:(A) Parole - Conviction for heinous offence not sole ground for denial - Rejection must be objectively based on likelihood of endangering security of State or maintenance of public order - Good conduct in jail, valid agricultural purpose with local support established - Non-recommendation by local authorities and opposition from deceased's family held insufficient without material on threats - Parole granted for 42 days with bonds and conditions. (Paras 9, 11-17)

(B) Parole principles - Reformative theory requires affording prisoners opportunity to maintain family/social ties, breathe fresh air, subject to good conduct and reformation tendency - Humanistic approach balancing deterrence, prevention; mere offence gravity, absent recidivism risk or public threat, no bar - Stricter scrutiny for serious offences but not outright denial. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
Life convict for murder, served over 3 years 10 months with satisfactory conduct, applied for 42 days parole for agricultural work on family land lying fallow due to aged parents; recommended by jail superintendent and Gram Panchayat (no objection), but rejected citing heinous crime, non-recommendation by District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police, opposition by deceased's parents.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner released on parole for 42 days subject to personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties, good conduct undertaking, surrender post-parole; Probation Officer to supervise; jail superintendent may impose further conditions.

Issues: Validity of parole rejection solely on heinous offence nature and local non-recommendation; whether authorities applied independent mind assessing statutory grounds; sufficiency of victims' family apprehension.

Ratio Decidendi: Parole denial unsustainable if not linked to statutory grounds of state security/public order danger; supports prisoner reformation, social reintegration; offence seriousness alone, without evidence of threat or recidivism, illegal; mechanical rejection without reasons violative.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. murder convict's agricultural parole need; victim opposition noted. (Para 2 , 3 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments: heinous crime insufficient without security threat. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. parole promotes reformation, family ties despite serious offences. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. rejection invalid absent public order or state security risk. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. 42-day parole granted with bonds and supervision. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) and mandamus to direct the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for 42 days.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that an FIR No. 87 of 2021 dated 10.08.2021 was registered against him at Police Station Rohru for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner was convicted on 20.08.2024 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He applied for parole on 02.09.2024 for agricultural purposes. The application was recommended by the Superintendent of the Jail, however, the respondent No.2 rejected the application on the ground that the District Magistrate had not recommended the release of the petitioner. The Gram Panchayat had expressed no objection to the release of the petitioner on bail. The petitioner has served 3 years and 10 months of the sentence. The rejection is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. No material was placed on record to establish that the release of the petitioner was likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. The conviction of a person for committing a serious and heinous crime cannot be a reason for denying parole to a person. The conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of ICP and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default sentence. The petitioner had undergone 3 years, 11 months and 25 days of imprisonment on 07.08.2025. His conduct in jail was found satisfactory. He applied for parole for 42 days on 26.10.2024. His request was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police for their recommendation/verification. However, the case of the petitioner was not recommended by the District Magistrate, Shimla. Superintendent of police stated that the petitioner had committed a serious offence and his parole was not recommended. Sham Lal and Maghi Devi, parents of the deceased, were also opposed to the release of the petitioner on parole. Parole is not a right but a privilege. The application was rightly rejected as per the recommendation of the District Authorities. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had applied for parole for agricultural purposes. His application was duly recommended by the Superintendent of Jail, but was wrongly rejected by the respondent No.2. There is no evidence that the release of the petitioner on parole is likely to endanger the public order or the security of the State. The respondent No.2 did not apply its independent mind, and the application for parole cannot be rejected merely because the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous offence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on