Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ram Vilas vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 1 July, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3622 of 2025
.
Reserved on: 24.06.2025
Date of Decision: 1st July, 2025.
Ram Vilas ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ...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/State. : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking a
direction to the respondents to release him on parole for a period of
28 days, subject to the terms and conditions which the Court may
impose. It has been asserted that the petitioner was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for 20 years, pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for two years
for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
Act’) by learned Special Judge (Sessions) Fast-Track Special Court,
District Kangra at Dharamshala. The petitioner has completed more
.
than 2 years, 7 months, and 22 days in jail. The petitioner applied
for parole for agricultural purposes. The application was not decided
by the respondents; hence, the present petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply. It was asserted
that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for two years and to pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/- with default sentence for
the commission of an offence punishable under Section 363 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and rigorous imprisonment for twenty
years and to pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/- with default sentence for the
commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO
Act. The petitioner has not deposited the fine amount. He was
serving imprisonment at Lala Lajpat Rai, District and Open-Air
Correctional Home, Dharamshala and had undergone an actual
sentence of 2 years, 9 months and 11 days as on 20.03.2025,
excluding remission. His conduct in jail was found to be satisfactory.
He applied for parole, and his application was forwarded to the
District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police Kangra at
Dharamshala. The case was not recommended by the district
authority; hence, the application was rejected on 18.03.2025. The
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
3
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
parole is a privilege and not a right, and can be granted on the
satisfaction of the competent authority; therefore, it was prayed
.
that the present petition be dismissed.
3. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and
affirming those of the petition was filed. It was asserted that the
authorities rejected the application for parole on the ground that the
victim’s family members objected to the parole of the petitioner.
The petitioner was released on bail, and no complaint was ever
received against him. An affidavit was also filed, in which it was
mentioned that the distance between the petitioner’s village and the
victim was around 8 to 10 kilometres.
4. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent/State.
5. Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner had applied for parole, which was
rejected on the objection of the victim’s family members expressing
their apprehensions. The distance between the village of the
petitioner and the victim is 8-10 kilometres, and it is not possible to
intimidate the victim by going to her village. The petitioner was on
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
bail throughout the trial, and no complaint was ever made against
him; therefore, the apprehension expressed by the victim’s family
.
members is without any basis. The petitioner undertakes not to
contact the victim during the parole period; hence, he prayed that
the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released
on parole.
6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the victim’s
family members expressed a danger to their lives; therefore, the
application for parole was rejected by the competent authority after
considering the reports of the district authorities. Parole is a
privilege and not a right, and the petitioner cannot claim to be
released on parole; 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
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
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 goodbehaviour 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 that the parolee regularly reports to asupervising 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 meresuspension of the sentence for the time being, keeping the
quantum of sentence intact. Release on parole is designed toafford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified
exigencies. Such paroles are normally granted in certainsituations, 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::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
(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 in 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 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;
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
(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.
15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the
period of 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.
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
(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.
(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
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
9
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
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 the
.
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. 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
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
committed by the offenders who have been put back in 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 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
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
11
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
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 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
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
12
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
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] and CharlesSobraj 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
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
13
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
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 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 – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
14
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
9. This Court also held in Harbhajan Singh v. State of H.P.,
2019 SCC OnLine HP 3599, that the parole can be denied if the release
.
of the convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or for the
maintenance of public order. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 threatto 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 Magistratehas 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 State::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
15
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )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 thecourt’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 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/pre-mature release or furlough
is not a right of a detinue. 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:
“15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the
period of 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::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
16
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )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 undergoingsentence 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. Forthis 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 sentenceand 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 anopportunity to solve their personal and family problems
and to enable them to maintain their links with society…”
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
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
17
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
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 opportunityto the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen.”
In Inder Singh v. State, the Apex Court has devised another
humanizing strategy, viz. a guarded parole release every
year, atleast a month, punctuating the total prison term, for
maintaining his family ties. A 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 enlarged on parole for two::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
18
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )months. ‘Their lordships further added that “Article
21 of the Constitution is the root for this legal
liberalism.”
.
10. In the present case, Pardhan has expressed no objection
to the release of the petitioner on parole. However, the victim’s
father, Jagdish, objected to the grant of parole by saying that he
apprehended the danger to his life and property; hence, he should
not be released on parole.
11. The district authority recommended the rejection of the
parole because of the apprehension expressed by Jagdish. The parole
could not have been rejected on the basis of the apprehension
expressed by the victim’s family members. The parole can be
rejected on the ground that the release of the convict is likely to
endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public
order. The apprehension expressed by the victim’s family member
does not fall within the definition of either of these conditions;
hence, the reason for rejection of the application for parole is not
sustainable in law.
12. The custody certificate produced on record shows that
the conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory and no complaints
were received against him. No punishment was awarded to him
during the period of sentence. The petitioner remained on bail, and
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS
19
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20626 )
there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had misused
the concession of bail by threatening the victim’s family members.
.
Therefore, the rejection of the application by the competent
authority is not sustainable.
13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for 28 days subject to
his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- and two
surety bonds to the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Superintendent Jail with an undertaking to 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.
14. The Superintendent Jail is free to impose any other
suitable condition at the time of the release of the petitioner.
15. The present petition stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
1 July, 2025
st
Judge
(Saurav Pathania)
::: Downloaded on – 01/07/2025 21:20:47 :::CIS