Parole requests must balance individual rehabilitation needs with societal safety concerns.

Virender Singh, Judge.

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

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of 42 days, in a time bound manner, as per law laid down therefor.”

2. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., vide judgment, dated 2^nd December, 2023, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 302, 325, 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 27-54-59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and has been sentenced, as follows:

All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. By way of application, dated 28^th October, 2024 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner approached the respondents for availing the benefit of parole, as per the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking parole for 42 days, so that he could take care of his sick wife and look-after his agricultural land, with an endeavour to improve his economic condition.

4. According to the petitioner, his application for parole has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide order, dated 3^rd February, 2025 (Annexure P-4), on the basis of non-recommendation of the District Magistrate, Shimla, on the objection raised by the Superintendent of Police, Shimla.

5. Challenging the rejection of his request, the petitioner has asserted that the ground, upon which, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, there is nothing on the record to justify the said rejection.

6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order (Annexure P-4), by virtue of which, the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, has been rejected and sought the relief, as claimed in Annexure P-3.

7. When put to notice, the prayer, so made, in the writ petition, has been opposed on the ground that the petitioner had applied for 42 days’ parole on 28^th October, 2024, for agricultural purposes. Thereafter, his request was duly forwarded to District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate, Shimla and Superintendent of Police, Shimla, for recommendation/verification, as per the provisions of the Act, however, the District Magistrate, Shimla, vide letter, dated 26^th December, 2024, has submitted the report not recommending the benefit of parole to the petitioner, on the ground that the house of the petitioner is located right next to the house of the victim and if the petitioner is released on parole, it will be a danger to the lives of the family of the victim.

8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.

9. As per the record, the petitioner has undergone 4 years, 1 month and 7 days, including remission. He has applied on 28^th October, 2024, for releasing him on parole for taking care of his wife and