Parole cannot be denied solely because a crime is heinous. Rejection must be based on specific evidence that the convict's release would endanger state security or prejudice public order, adhering to the reformative theory of sentencing and the prisoner's conduct during incarceration.

Whether approved for reporting?¹1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 02.09.2025 and his release on parole. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act, 1985. He is serving his sentence in Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour. The petitioner applied for parole to visit his home to meet his ailing mother and minor son. This application was rejected because his release on parole would pose a threat to society. This rejection is unjustified. Hence the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the release of the convict is governed by Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969 (Prisoners Rules). The application submitted by a prisoner is forwarded to the District Magistrate for his recommendation. The parole can be denied to a prisoner if his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. In the present case, the petitioner was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 (c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years, pay a fine of ₹1,40,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year and four months. The petitioner has undergone a substantive sentence of one year, 10 months, and 25 days as of 14.11.2025. The petitioner had applied for 28 days' parole. His application was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Mandi, for their recommendation. They did not recommend the petitioner’s release on parole because he was involved in the commission of a heinous crime, and he was a habitual offender. His presence is dangerous to the security of the State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The competent authority rejected the parole application after giving it due consideration. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner’s application for parole could not have been rejected on the ground that he was convicted of the commission of a heinous offence. The application could have been rejected if the petitioner’s release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. These grounds are not satisfied in the present case, and the competent authority erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the Superintendent of Police had specifically reported that the release of the petitioner was likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is a valid consideration. The competent authority had rejected the parole based on this report. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the competent authority. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given co