Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 14193 of 2025
Decided On : 11-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pranav Kaushal
For the Respondent: Prashant Sen

Parole cannot be denied solely based on objections from the victim's family without substantial evidence; it's essential to balance prisoner rights with public safety.

Headnote:(A) H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 - Sections 3 and 4 - Parole - Application denied based on opposition from the victim's family without substantial evidence; legitimate grounds for parole such as maintaining family ties alluded - Courts grant discretion, considering both prisoner rights and public safety. The petition allowed for parole release for 42 days. (Paras 1, 2, 13, 12)

(B) Parole's objective - Purpose of parole includes maintaining social ties; parole deemed necessary for reformation and reintegration into society, not to be denied solely on the nature of the crime. (Paras 10, 8, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was sentenced to 10 years under POCSO and sought parole for agricultural work, opposed due to alleged threats to the victim's family.

Findings of Court:
The denial lacked substantial basis and was deemed arbitrary; hence, the petitioner was ordered parole release for 42 days.

Issues: Whether the petitioner’s application for parole was rightly rejected on grounds of public safety and victim's claims.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere objection from the victim's family cannot be grounds for denial of parole; relevant considerations about conduct and societal safety must guide parole decisions.

Result: Petition allowed for granting parole.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.6.2025 and a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for four weeks. It has been asserted that the petitioner has undergone one year, 08 months and 19 days of total substantive sentence as on 3.7.2025. He applied for parole to carry out agricultural work. Gram Panchayat Hiran issued a No Objection Certificate for granting parole to the petitioner. The petitioner’s application was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Kangra, at Dharamshala; however, he did not recommend the parole, and the authority rejected the petitioner’s application on 10.6.2025. The rejection of the application is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner has to maintain ties with society, and the objection raised by the victim’s family cannot be a reason for rejection of the parole. Hence, the present petition.

2. The petition is opposed by respondents No.1 to 3 by filing a reply, making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. It was asserted that the prisoners are being released on parole as per Sections 3 and 4 of the Prisoners Act and the Rules framed thereunder. A convict is not entitled to parole if the District Magistrate is satisfied that he is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The petitioner was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Special Judge, POCSO on 22.4.2024 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years, pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence for the commission of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The petitioner had undergone one year, 07 months and 18 days of imprisonment as on 5.9.2025. The petitioner applied for 42 days' parole. His application was sent to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. They conducted an inquiry and did not recommend the parole because of the threat to the victim and her family members. The Releasing Authority is bound to reject the request for parole in case the District Magistrate does not recommend the release. Since the District Magistrate had not recommended the release, therefore, the petitioner’s application for parole was rightly rejected.

3. The respondent no. 5 filed a separate reply making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of maintainability, the petitioner having concealed material facts from the Court, and the denial of the parole being as per the provisions of the Prisoners Act and the Rules. It was asserted that the application for parole was processed by the competent authorities as per law. The recommendation from the District Magistrate was based on a detailed and reasoned report received from the Superintendent of Police, who had supplied the specific and germane reasons for denying the parole. The victim’s father stated that granting parole to the petitioner would endanger the victim’s safety. The power of parole has to be exercised cautiously after balancing the prisoners' rights with the public order and the protection of the victims. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr. Pranav Kaushal, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Pranav Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the parole application could not have been rejected on the ground that the victim’s family had objected to the petitioner’s release on parole. The application could have been rejected only on the g