28.7.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 4 August, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 28.7.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 4 August, 2025

2025:HHC:25806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 10252 of 2025

.

                                              Reserved on: 28.7.2025





                                              Date of Decision: 04.8.2025





    Gulab Singh                                                                  ...Petitioner.

                                     Versus





    State of H.P. and others                                                ...Respondents.



    Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate
General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

quashing the order dated 10.6.2025 (Annexure P-3), vide which

the application for parole filed by the petitioner was rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

petition are that the petitioner was convicted by learned Special

Judge, Mandi for the commission of offences punishable under

Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
2

2025:HHC:25806

Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the ND&PS Act‘) and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 13 years, and

.

pay fine of ₹1,30,000/- with default sentence. The petitioner has

completed more than 03 years, 11 months and 06 days in jail on

the date of issuance of the Custody Certificate (Annexure-P1).

The petitioner applied for parole for agricultural purposes. This

application was rejected because the petitioner’s case was not

recommended by the concerned District Magistrate, who stated

that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous

crime. The rejection violates the provisions of the Himachal

Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968

(Prisoners Act) and Chapter 19 of the Himachal Pradesh Jail

Manual, 2021. Hence the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting

that the petitioner had earlier applied for 42 days’ parole. His

application was sent to the District Magistrate and

Superintendent of Police, Mandi, for their

recommendation/verification. It was found that the petitioner is

involved in the commission of a heinous offence and his release

on parole would pose a significant threat to the society. Hence,

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
3
2025:HHC:25806

the application was rejected. Parole is a privilege and not a right.

Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

.

4. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate

General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the application for parole was wrongly rejected

on the ground that the offence was heinous. The purpose of the

parole is the rehabilitation of the convict in society. The

Prisoners Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not provide

for considering the nature of the offence while considering the

parole application. The application was rejected on irrelevant

considerations. The conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory as

per the custody certificate (Annexure-P1). Therefore, he prayed

that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be

released on parole.

6. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General,

for the respondent-State, submitted that the parole is a privilege

and not a right. The petitioner was involved in the commission

of a heinous offence, and his release on parole would be

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
4
2025:HHC:25806

detrimental to the interests of society. Hence, he prayed that the

present petition be dismissed.

.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 390:

2017 SCC OnLine SC 1092, that parole grants an opportunity to

the convict to maintain his links with society. Convicts must

breathe fresh air for at least some time. If they maintain good

conduct during incarceration and show a tendency to reform

themselves, parole should not be denied to them. It was

observed at page 60: –

“10. In the first instance, it would be necessary to

understand the meaning and purpose of the grant of
parole. It would be better understood when considered in
contrast with furlough. These terms have been legally

defined and judicially explained by the courts from time
to time.

11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and
furlough. A parole can be defined as the conditional
release of prisoners, i.e. an early release of a prisoner,
conditional on good behaviour and regular reporting to
the authorities for a set period of time. It can also be
defined as a form of conditional pardon by which the
convict is released before the expiration of his term. Thus,
the parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
5
2025:HHC:25806

that the parolee regularly reports to a supervising officer
for a specified period. Such a release of the prisoner on
parole can also be temporary on some basic grounds. In

.

that eventuality, it is to be treated as a mere suspension of

the sentence for the time being, keeping the quantum of
sentence intact. Release on parole is designed to afford
some relief to the prisoners in certain specified

exigencies. Such paroles are normally granted in certain
situations, some of which may be as follows:

(i) a member of the prisoner’s family has died or is

seriously ill, or the prisoner himself is seriously ill;
or

(ii) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son,
daughter, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister,

sister’s son or daughter is to be celebrated; or

(iii) the temporary release of the prisoner is
necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or
carrying on any other agricultural operation of his

land or his father’s undivided land actually in
possession of the prisoner; or

(iv) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient

cause;

(v) parole can be granted only after a portion of the
sentence is already served.

(vi) if conditions of parole are not abided by, the

parolee may be returned to serve his sentence in
prison; such conditions may be such as those of
committing a new offence, and

(vii) parole may also be granted on the basis of
aspects related to the health of the convict himself.

12. Many State Governments have formulated guidelines
on parole in order to bring out objectivity to the decision
making and to decide as to whether parole needs to be
granted in a particular case or not. Such a decision in
those cases is taken in accordance with the guidelines

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
6
2025:HHC:25806

framed. Guidelines of some of the States stipulate two
kinds of parole, namely, custody parole and regular
parole. “Custody parole” is generally granted in emergent

.

circumstances like:

(i) death of a family member;

(ii) marriage of a family member;

(iii) serious illness of a family member; or

(iv) any other emergent circumstances.

13. As far as “regular parole” is concerned, it may be given

in the following cases:

(i) serious illness of a family member;

(ii) critical conditions in the family on account of

the accident or death of a family member;

(iii) marriage of any member of the family of the
convict;

(iv) delivery of a child by the wife of the convict if

there is no other family member to take care of the
spouse at home;

(v) serious damage to the life or property of the

family of the convict, including damage caused by
natural calamities;

(vi) to maintain family and social ties;

(vii) to pursue the filing of a special leave petition

before this Court against a judgment delivered by
the High Court convicting or upholding the
conviction, as the case may be.

14. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief release from
prison. It is conditional and is given in case of long-term
imprisonment. The period of sentence spent on furlough
by the prisoners need not be undergone by him as is done
in the case of parole. Furlough is granted as a good
conduct remission.

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
7

2025:HHC:25806

15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for
the period of the sentence or rest of his life in case he is a
life convict. It is in this context that his release from jail

.

for a short period has to be considered as an opportunity

afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family
problems but also to maintain his links with society.
Convicts, too, must breathe fresh air for at least some

time, provided they maintain good conduct consistently
during incarceration and show a tendency to reform
themselves and become good citizens. Thus, the
redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for the

good of societies must receive due weightage while they
are undergoing a sentence of imprisonment.

16. This Court, through various pronouncements, has laid

down the differences between parole and furlough, a few

of which are as under:

(i) Both parole and furlough are conditional
releases.

(ii) Parole can be granted in case of short-term
imprisonment, whereas furlough it is granted in
case of long-term imprisonment.

(iii) Duration of parole extends to one month,
whereas in the case of furlough, it extends to

fourteen days maximum.

(iv) Parole is granted by the Divisional

Commissioner, and furlough is granted by the
Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.

(v) For parole, a specific reason is required, whereas
furlough is meant for breaking the monotony of
imprisonment.

(vi) The term of imprisonment is not included in the
computation of the term of parole, whereas it is vice
versa in furlough.

(vii) Parole can be granted a number of times,
whereas there is a limitation in the case of furlough.

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
8

2025:HHC:25806

(viii) Since furlough is not granted for any particular
reason, it can be denied in the interest of society.

(See State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang

.

Darvakar [State of Maharashtra v. Suresh

Pandurang Darvakar, (2006) 4 SCC 776 : (2006)
2 SCC (Cri) 411] and State of
Haryana v. Mohinder Singh [State of

Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394:

2000 SCC (Cri) 645] .)

17. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that amongst

the various grounds on which parole can be granted, the
most important ground, which stands out, is that a
prisoner should be allowed to maintain family and social
ties. For this purpose, he has to come out for some time so

that he can maintain his family and social contact. This

reason finds justification in one of the objectives behind
sentence and punishment, namely, the reformation of the
convict. The theory of criminology, which is largely

accepted, underlines that the main objectives which a
State intends to achieve by punishing the culprit are:

deterrence, prevention, retribution and reformation.

When we recognise reformation as one of the objectives, it
provides justification for letting out even the life convicts

for short periods, on parole, in order to afford
opportunities to such convicts not only to solve their
personal and family problems but also to maintain their

links with society. Another objective which this theory
underlines is that even such convicts have the right to
breathe fresh air, albeit for (sic short periods. These
gestures on the part of the State, along with other
measures, go a long way for the redemption and
rehabilitation of such prisoners. They are ultimately
aimed for the good of society and, therefore, are in the
public interest.

18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide
for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails.

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
9

2025:HHC:25806

The main purpose of such provisions is to afford them an
opportunity to solve their personal and family problems
and to enable them to maintain their links with society.

.

Even citizens of this country have a vested interest in

preparing offenders for successful re-entry into society.
Those who leave prison without strong networks of
support, without employment prospects, without a

fundamental knowledge of the communities to which
they will return, and without resources, stand a
significantly higher chance of failure. When offenders
revert to criminal activity upon release, they frequently do

so because they lack hope of merging into society as
accepted citizens. Furloughs or parole can help prepare
offenders for success.

19. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting

parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of
sentencing, other competing public interests has also to
be kept in mind while deciding as to whether, in a
particular case, parole or furlough is to be granted or not.

This public interest also demands that those who are
habitual offenders and may have the tendency to commit
the crime again after their release on parole, or have the

tendency to become a threat to the law and order of
society, should not be released on parole. This aspect

takes care of other objectives of sentencing, namely,
deterrence and prevention. This side of the coin is the

experience that a great number of crimes are committed
by the offenders who have been put back on the street
after conviction. Therefore, while deciding as to whether a
particular prisoner deserves to be released on parole or
not, the aforesaid aspects have also to be kept in mind. To
put it tersely, the authorities are supposed to address the
question as to whether the convict is such a person who
has the tendency to commit such a crime, or he is showing
a tendency to reform himself to become a good citizen.

20. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for the
grant of furlough or parole. Obviously, society must

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
10
2025:HHC:25806

isolate those who show patterns of preying upon victims.
Yet administrators ought to encourage those offenders
who demonstrate a commitment to reconcile with society

.

and whose behaviour shows that they aspire to live as

law-abiding citizens. Thus, the parole programme should
be used as a tool to shape such adjustments.

21. To sum up, in introducing penal reforms, the State

that runs the administration on behalf of the society and
for the benefit of the society at large cannot be unmindful
of safeguarding the legitimate rights of the citizens in

regard to their security in matters of life and liberty. It is
for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the
authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to the
society to render it immune from those who are prone to

criminal tendencies and have proved their susceptibility

to indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty (by
a court) of having perpetrated a criminal act. One of the
discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of
imprisonment is to render society immune from the

criminal for a specified period. It is, therefore,
understandable that while meting out humane treatment
to the convicts, care has to be taken to ensure that

kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to
society. Naturally enough, the authorities would be

anxious to ensure that the convict who is released on
furlough does not seize the opportunity to commit

another crime when he is at large for the time being under
the furlough leave granted to him by way of a measure of
penal reform.

22. Another vital aspect that needs to be discussed is as to
whether there can be any presumption that a person who
is convicted of a serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso
facto, treated as a hardened criminal. The hardened
criminal would be a person for whom it has become a
habit or way of life, and such a person would necessarily
tend to commit crimes again and again. Obviously, if a
person has committed a serious offence for which he is

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
11
2025:HHC:25806

convicted, but at the same time it is also found that it is
the only crime he has committed, he cannot be
categorised as a hardened criminal. In his case,

.

consideration should be given as to whether he is showing

the signs to reform himself and become a good citizen, or
there are circumstances which would indicate that he has
a tendency to commit the crime again or that he would be

a threat to the society. The mere nature of the offence
committed by him should not be a factor to deny the
parole outrightly. Wherever a person convicted has
suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted

temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of the offence
for which he was sentenced. We may hasten to put a rider
here viz. in those cases where a person has been convicted

for committing a serious offence, the competent
authority, while examining such cases, can be well

advised to have stricter standards in mind while judging
their cases on the parameters of good conduct, habitual
offender or while judging whether he could be considered

highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and
tranquillity, etc.

23. There can be no cavil in saying that a society that

believes in the worth of the individuals can have the
quality of its belief judged, at least in part, by the quality

of its prisons and services and the recourse made
available to the prisoners. Being in a civilised society

organised with law and a system as such, it is essential to
ensure every citizen a reasonably dignified life. If a person
commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing
a crime, he ceases to be a human being and that he can be
deprived of those aspects of life which constitute human
dignity. For a prisoner, all fundamental rights are an
enforceable reality, though restricted by the fact of
imprisonment. [See Sunil Batra (2) v. State (UT of
Delhi) [Sunil Batra (2) v. State (UT of Delhi), (1980) 3 SCC
488: 1980 SCC (Cri) 777], Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248]

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
12
2025:HHC:25806

and Charles Sobraj v. Supt., Central Jail [Charles
Sobraj v. Supt., Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC 104: 1978 SCC (Cri)
542] .]

.

24. It is also to be kept in mind that by the time an

application for parole is moved by a prisoner, he would
have spent some time in jail. During this period, various
reformatory methods must have been applied. We can

take judicial note of this fact, having regard to such
reformation facilities available in modern jails. One would
know by this time as to whether there is a habit of

relapsing into crime in spite of having administered
correctional treatment. This habit, known as
“recidivism”, reflects the fact that the correctional
therapy has not brought (sic any change in the mind of the

criminal. It also shows that a criminal is hardcore, who is

beyond correctional therapy. If the correctional therapy
has not been made in itself, in a particular case, such a
case can be rejected on the aforesaid ground, i.e. on its
merits.

25. We are not oblivious of the fact that there may be
hardcore criminals who, by reason of their crime and the

methods of dealing with the crime, form associations,
loyalties and attitudes which tend to persist. There may

even be peer pressure when such convicts are out to
commit those crimes again. There may be pressure of
being ostracised from delinquent groups, which may lead

them to commit the crime again. Persistence in criminal
behaviour may also be due to personality traits, most
frequently due to pathological traits of personality, such
as mental defectiveness, emotional instability, mental
conflicts, egocentrism and psychosis. In regard to relapse
or recidivism, Frank Exner, a noted criminologist and
sociologist, points out that the chances of repeating
increase with the number of previous arrests and the
interval between the last and the next offence becomes
shortened as the number of previous crimes progresses
[ Frank Exner, Kriminologie, pp. 115-120]. The purpose of

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
13
2025:HHC:25806

the criminological study is the prognosis of the
improvable occasional offenders and that of the
irredeemable habitual offenders and hardcore criminals.

.

To differentiate the recidivists from non-recidivists and

dangerous and hard-core criminals from occasional
criminals had been enumerated by Exner in the following
flowsheet:

(i) Hereditary weakness in the family life.

(ii) Increasing tempo of criminality.

(iii) Bad conditions in the parental home.

(iv) Bad school progress (especially in deportment
and industriousness).

(v) Failure to complete studies once begun.

(vi) Irregular work (work shyness).

(vii) Onset of criminality before 18 years of age.

(viii) More than four previous sentences.

(ix) Quick relapse of crime.

(x) Interlocal criminality (mobility).

(xi) Psychopathic personality (diagnosis of
institutional doctor).

(xii) Alcoholism.

(xiii) Release from the institution before 36 years of

age.

(xiv) Bad conduct in the institution.

(xv) Bad social and family relations during the
period of release.

At the same time, as criminality is the expression of the
“symptom” of a certain disorder in the offenders, they
can be easily reformed if they are rightly diagnosed and
the correct treatment is administered to them.”

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
14

2025:HHC:25806

9. The application for parole was rejected after

considering the nature of the offence. This Court held in

.

Harbhajan Singh v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3599, that

the mere nature of the offence cannot be a ground to deny parole

when the prisoner’s conduct shows a tendency to reform

himself. It was observed:

“17. For rejection of an application for parole, there are
two grounds set out in Section 6 of the Act. Firstly, in case
a prisoner is released, he will likely to endanger the

security of the State. Admittedly, the petitioner has been

convicted for the offence committed under Section 302
IPC. But, in no way, it could be inferred that he is likely to
endanger the security of the State, and even if so, the
State has got enormous powers to put restrictions on the

petitioner to protect the Security of the State. The second
ground is the maintenance of public order. In this regard,
in the response made by the District Magistrate, there is

no reference as to whether he laid a threat to public order.

18. When these two grounds, set out in Section 6 of the

Act, are not reflected or mirrored in the report of the
District Magistrate, we have to presume that the District

Magistrate has given its report without application of
mind. When a provision or a statute directs an officer to
do a particular job in a particular manner, it shall be the
duty of that officer to do the said job in that particular
manner only. When a District Magistrate is directed to
make a report on the basis of assessment in an objective
manner, he shall do it in that manner only.

19. Further, the rejection by the Government or the officer
authorized by the Government should be on two grounds,
namely, when it is likely to endanger the security of the

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
15
2025:HHC:25806

State or the maintenance of the public order, which are
lacking in the instant case.

20. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, UT

.

Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608: AIR 1981 SC 746, Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Marshal has aptly said, and we quote. “I have
previously stated my views that a prisoner does not shed
his basic constitutional rights at the prison gate, and I

fully support the court’s holding that the interest of the
inmate.”

21. In Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295, it has

been held that life means more than mere animal
existence. The right to live is not restricted to mere
animal existence. It means something more than just
physical survival.

22. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC

248: AIR 1978 SC 597, which was followed in Francis
Coralie v. Delhi Administration, supra, it has been held that
the right to live does not mean mere confinement to

physical existence but it includes within its ambit the
right to live with human dignity.

23. Seeking parole/remission/premature release, or

furlough, is not a right of a detenu. However, the same
has to be considered in the light of the observations made

hereinabove. The consideration should always keep in
view the rights of the prisoners. The release of a prisoner
from jail for a short period has to be considered as an

opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal
and family problems but also to maintain his links with
society. Convicts, too, must breathe fresh air for at least
some time, provided they maintain good conduct during
incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves
and become good citizens.

24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of
Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55, in para 15 of the judgment has
held as under:

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
16

2025:HHC:25806

“15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for
the period of the sentence or rest of his life in case he is
a life convict. It is in this context that his release from

.

jail for a short period has to be considered as an

opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his
personal and family problems but also to maintain his
links with society. Convicts, too, must breathe fresh air

for at least some time, provided they maintain good
conduct consistently during incarceration and show a
tendency to reform themselves and become good
citizens. Thus, redemption and rehabilitation of such

prisoners for the good of societies must receive due
weightage while they are undergoing a sentence of
imprisonment.”

25. From the discussion made hereinabove, it is clear that

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has propounded a reformative
theory. Under the said concept, an opportunity is to be
granted to a person to get himself reformed, and in case
he gets himself reformed, he will be a person to live in

society. It is also worthwhile to extract the relevant
portions of paras 17 and 18 of the said judgment herein:

“17. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that

amongst the various grounds on which parole can be
granted, the most important ground, which stands out,

is that a prisoner should be allowed to maintain family
and social ties. For this purpose, he has to come out for

some time so that he is able to maintain his family and
social contact. This reason finds justification in one of
the objectives behind sentence and punishment,
namely, the reformation of the convict……

18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide
for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in
jails. The main purpose of such provisions is to afford
them an opportunity to solve their personal and family
problems and to enable them to maintain their links
with society……”

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
17

2025:HHC:25806

26. Many a time, the State takes up the ground that the
prisoner has committed a heinous offence, and granting
parole/remission or pre-mature release is likely to

.

endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of

the public order. From the above discussion, we feel that
the conviction in a serious and heinous crime cannot be
the reason for denying parole per se. Having noted the

aforesaid public purpose in granting parole or furlough,
ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other
competing public interests has also to be kept in mind
while deciding as to whether, in a particular case, parole

or furlough is to be granted or not. This public interest
also demands that those who are habitual offenders and
may have the tendency to commit the crime again after
their release on parole, or have the tendency to become a

threat to the law and order of society, should not be

released on parole. Wherever a person convicted has
suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted
temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of the offence

for which he was sentenced.

27. In Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4
SCC 161, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the

behaviour of the prisoners shows responsibility and
trustworthiness, liberal though cautious, parole will be

allowed to them so that their family ties may be
maintained and inner tensions may not further build up.

28. In Shakuntala Devi v. State of Delhi, (1996) 36 DRJ 545, it
has been held as under:

“5. In Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan, it has been
held by their Lordship that “Release on parole is a wing
of reformative process and is expected to provide
opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a
useful citizen.”

In Inder Singh v. State, the Apex Court has devised
another humanising strategy, viz., a guarded parole
release every year, for at least a month, punctuating the
total prison term, for maintaining his family ties. A

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
18
2025:HHC:25806

prisoner cannot maintain his family ties by living in a
small world of his own, cribbed, cabined and confined
within the four walls of the prison. In the case of Inder

.

Singh (supra), their lordships directed that:–

“…….. if the behaviour of the prisoners shows
responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal
though cautious, parole will be allowed to them

so that their family ties may be maintained and
inner tensions may not further build up. After
every period of one year, they should be released
on parole for two months. ‘Their lordships

further added that “Article 21 of the Constitution
is the jurisdiction root for this legal liberalism.”

10. Therefore, the rejection of parole after considering

the nature of the offence is bad.

11. The documents annexed to the reply also show that

the Pradhan and Ward Panch of the Panchayat confirmed that

the petitioner’s mother and wife were unable to carry out the

cultivation. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner regarding

the necessity to visit his house to cultivate the land is duly

supported by the material collected by the State.

12. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed

and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for 42 days

subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

₹1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the Superintendent Jail with an undertaking to

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
19
2025:HHC:25806

maintain good conduct during the period of parole and to

surrender before the Superintendent Jail after the expiry of the

.

period of parole. The Probation Officer is also directed to

maintain a close watch on the activities of the petitioner and to

report any deviation from the direction issued by the Court.

13. The Superintendent Jail is free to impose any other

suitable condition at the time of the release of the petitioner.

14. The present petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
4th August 2025

(Chander)

::: Downloaded on – 04/08/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS