Parole cannot be denied solely on the nature of the offence; it must be based on objective criteria regarding the potential threat to the security of the State or public order, considering the prisoner's conduct and the reformative purpose of maintaining social and family ties.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for 28 days. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted in F.I.R. No. 99 of 2015, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, H.P. vide judgment dated 01.08.2025 and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, pay a fine of ₹2,01,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months and 10 days. The petitioner has already served a sentence of five years, six months and twenty-four days as on 07.11.2024. He submitted an application for his temporary release on parole because the economic condition of his family was weak and he needed to arrange funds as the elder son of the family. The petitioner’s father had impaired vision and was unable to visit the jail to meet him. The petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that the District authority had not recommended his release on parole. The conduct of the petitioner inside the jail was satisfactory, and nothing adverse was reported against him. The rejection order is contrary to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1968; therefore, the present petition was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the convicts are released on parole under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1968 (Prisoners Act) and Rules framed thereunder called Himachal Pradesh (Temporary Release) Rules,1969 (Prisoners Rules). The petitioner had filed an application for seeking his release on parole on 08.01.2025. His request was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Solan, for their verification. The District Magistrate, Solan, H.P., did not recommend the grant of parole to the petitioner. Gurbachan Singh, Ward Member and Roop Lal stated that the petitioner was a quarrelsome and dangerous person. He could pose a threat to the victim; hence, in view of these statements, the state authority recommended the denial of parole. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. The State was directed to file the material in support of the reply that the petitioner was a dangerous and quarrelsome person, and the State submitted the instruction stating that no written complaint had been filed by the complainant or his family members against the petitioner at the Police station.

4. I have heard Mr Kiran Kumar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Kiran Kumar, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has undergone more than five years of the sentence awarded to him. He has a right to meet his family members and help them with their needs. The parole could not have been denied to him simply because some person had objected to it. Parole can be denied as per the guidelines laid down under the Prisoners Act and the Prisoners Rules. The grounds for rejection put forth by the respondents do not fall within the criteria laid down under the Prisoners Act and Prisoners Rules. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be ordered to be released on parole.

6. Mr Lokende