1 2025:HHC:16734-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 463 of 2025 Reserved on : 21.05.2025 Decided on : 30.05 .2025 Amit …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 : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner- Amit 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:16734-DB “i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quash and set aside Annexure P-2 dated 03.09.2024, in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) 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, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape & POCSO), Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, vide judgment, dated 13th April, 2022, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 376 (3), 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced, as follows: Section Sentence imposed Default sentence 376 (3) IPC rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- ₹ simple imprisonment, for a period of six months 363 IPC rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 3,000/- ₹ simple imprisonment for a period of three months 366 IPC rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of 7,000/- ₹ simple imprisonment for a period of three months 3 2025:HHC:16734-DB All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. 3. By way of application, dated 7th December, 2023, 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, in order to meet his family members. 4. According to the petitioner, his application for parole was recommended by respondent No. 4, i.e. Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, however, his application has been rejected by respondent No. 2, i.e. Director General, Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, vide order, dated 3rd September, 2024 (Annexure P-2). The said order has been passed on the basis of the report, submitted by District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. 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 4 2025:HHC:16734-DB 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- 2), by virtue of which, the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, has been rejected. 7. When put to notice, the prayer, so made, in the writ petition, has been opposed on the ground that after receiving the application (Annexure P-1), the matter was referred to District Magistrate of the concerned District, as per the provisions of the Act, however, after consulting the Superintendent of Police and making inquiries, the prayer of the petitioner was not recommended by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. Consequently, the same has been rejected by the respondents-authorities. 8. Another grounds, upon which, the rejection of the prayer has been supported, are that neither the petitioner, nor his family members, own agricultural land; petitioner does not have a good reputation in the village and there is strong suspicion that he may abscond, if released on parole. 5 2025:HHC:16734-DB 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition. 10. As per the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner has undergone substantive sentence of six years, three months and nineteen days, as on 6th March, 2025. His conduct is also stated to be satisfactory, however, on the basis of the report, received from the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, his prayer has been declined. 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 para17, of the judgment, is 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 6 2025:HHC:16734-DB justification for letting of 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 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.” (self emphasis supplied) 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 respondents have placed on record the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Purvalian, Police Station Mansurpur, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The Panchayat has specifically made no objection, if the relief of parole is extended to the petitioner. 14. The ground, upon which, the prayer of the petitioner has been declined by the respondents, is the report made by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. The said recommendation has simply been made on the 7 2025:HHC:16734-DB ground that no agricultural land is in the name of the petitioner, as well as, his brothers; and he does not have good reputation in the village, whereas, the Panchayat has recommended that the relief, as sought, in the application be given to the petitioner. 15. In such situation, the apprehension, which has been expressed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, can be said to be unfounded, without any basis. Consequently, rejection order, dated 3rd September, 2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No. 2, 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 3rd September, 2024 (Annexure P-2), 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, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P.; 8 2025:HHC:16734-DB (iii) It is made clear that the petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, 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; (iv) 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; and (v) 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, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P., for compliance. ( Virender Singh ) Judge May 30, 2025 ( rajni ) Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.05.30 12:13:20 IST