1  2025:HHC:25578 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. :10672 of 2025 Reserved on : 29.07.2025 Decided on : 31.07 .2025 Neeta Ram alias Neta Ram alias Nitu …Petitioner versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Anita, Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner- Neeta Ram alias Neta Ram alias Nitu has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs, amongst others: 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2  2025:HHC:25578 “A. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the direction for respondent No. 1 to 4 to quash and set aside the Annexure P-3 dated 24-02-2025, in the interest of justice and fair play. B. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for the period of 28 days to meet his family members just to maintain family and social ties.” 2. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., vide judgment, dated 17th June, 2022, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 302, 452 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 21,000/-. ₹ 3. By way of application, dated 29th August, 2024 (Annexure P-1), 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 28 days, to meet his family. 3  2025:HHC:25578 4. According to the petitioner, his application for parole has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide order, dated 22nd February, 2025 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of non-recommendation of the District Authorities. 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- 3), by virtue of which, the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, has been rejected and sought the relief, as claimed in his application, Annexure P-1. 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 28 days’ parole on 29th August, 2024, in order to meet his family. Thereafter, his request was duly forwarded to District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur and Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan, District 4  2025:HHC:25578 Sirmaur for recommendation/verification, as per the provisions of the Act, however, the District Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur, vide letter, dated 26th December, 2024, has submitted the report not recommending the benefit of parole to the petitioner, on the ground that previously, when the petitioner was released on parole, during his sister’s wedding, he was found roaming in the courtyard of the victim’s family, which created an atmosphere of fear. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition. 9. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone total sentence of 10 years, seven months and 24 days, including remission. He has applied on 28th October, 2024, for releasing him on parole for meeting his family members. His case has not been recommended for parole by District Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur, vide letter, dated 14th November, 2024 (Annexure R-2/4). 10. The said report has been made on the basis of the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, 5  2025:HHC:25578 Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. Alongwith the report, the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, has annexed the statements of the residents of the Gram Panchayat Bokala Paab and the victim (son of the deceased), wherein, they have objected to the grant of parole to the petitioner and have apprehended that he may commit any untoward incident, if released on parole. 11. The primary purpose of releasing the convict on parole has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Asfaq versus State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2017) 15 SCC 55. Relevant paras-17 to 24, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under: “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, 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 of even the life convicts for short periods, on parole, in order to afford opportunities to such convicts 6  2025:HHC:25578 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 right to breathe fresh air, albeit for periods. These gestures on the part of the State, along with other measures, go a long way for redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners. They are ultimately aimed for the good of the society and, therefore, are in public interest. 18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Main purpose of such provisions is to afford to 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 interest 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 threat to the law and order of the society, should not be released on parole. This aspect 7  2025:HHC:25578 takes care of other objectives of sentencing, namely, deterrence and prevention. This side of the coin is the experience that great number of crimes are 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 tendency to reform himself to become a good citizen. 20. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for 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 aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Thus, parole program 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 the 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 the society immune from the criminal for a specified period. It is, therefore, understandable that while meting out humane 8  2025:HHC:25578 treatment to the convicts, care has to be taken to ensure that kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to the 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 serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal. 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 categorized as a hardened criminal. In his case consideration should be 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. 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 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 office, 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 god conduct, habitual offender or while judging whether he could be 9  2025:HHC:25578 considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility 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 recourse made available to the prisoners. Being in a civilized society organized with law and a system as such, it is essential to ensure for 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 (II) v. State (UT of Delhi) (1980) 3 SCC 488 , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, (1978) 4 SCC 104. 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 the 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 in the mind of the criminal. It also shows that criminal is hardcore who is beyond correctional therapy. If the correctional therapy has not made in itself, in a particular case, such a case can be rejected on the aforesaid ground i.e. on its merits.” (self emphasis supplied) 10  2025:HHC:25578 12. In light of the above decision, this Court would now proceed to consider the fact as to whether the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer, seeking his release on parole, is sustainable in the eyes of law. 13. The ground, upon which, the prayer of the petitioner has been declined by the respondents, is the report made by the District Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur. The said recommendation has been made on the ground that the villagers and the son of the deceased have objected to the relief of parole, to be granted to the petitioner, apprehending any untoward incident. The State has not bothered to annex any document or to plead the fact that on account of the alleged act of the petitioner to roam in the courtyard of the victim family, has been reported to the police or any authority, because, the petitioner had earlier availed parole on 29th August, 2024. In the absence of any such material, the objection seems to have been made only for the sake of objection. 14. The prisoners should be allowed to maintain their family and social ties. They should also be given an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems 11  2025:HHC:25578 and to enable them to maintain their links with society. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the son of the deceased and the villagers, are concerned, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, is granted to the petitioner. 15. In such situation, in the considered opinion of this Court, rejection order, dated 22nd February, 2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No. 2, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, the same is quashed and set aside. The prayer, so made in the application (Annexure P-1) is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole, for a period of 28 days. 16. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, in the following terms: (i) Order, dated 22nd February, 2025 (Annexure P-3), rejecting the request of the petitioner for parole, is quashed and set-aside; (ii) Respondents are directed to extend the concession of parole to the petitioner, for a period of 28 days, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/-, with two ₹ sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.; (iii) The petitioner shall also undertake that he shall not cause any threat or inducement to 12  2025:HHC:25578 the family of the victim/deceased, nor, try to contact them, in any manner; (iv) It is made clear that the petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., on expiry of parole period. In case, the petitioner breaches any of the conditions of parole order or creates any law and order problem, then, the respondents are free to cancel the parole and take action against the petitioner, in accordance with law; (v) In peculiar facts and circumstances, of the case, the respondents are at liberty to impose any other just and reasonable condition(s), in addition to the conditions mentioned hereinabove, if deemed fit and proper, to meet the ends of justice; (vi) Violation of any of the above conditions shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of similar prayer, in future. 17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. 18. Registry to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., for compliance. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 31, 2025 ( rajni ) Digitally signed by VIKRANT CHANDEL Date: 2025.07.31 18:07:15 IST