1 2025:HHC:16735 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 3523 of 2025 Reserved on : 2 0 .05.2025 Decided on : 30.05 .2025 Rajesh Khachi …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 : Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner- Rajesh Khachi has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:16735 Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive relief, amongst others: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of 42 days, in a time bound manner, as per law laid down therefor.” 2. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., vide judgment, dated 2nd December, 2023, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 302, 325, 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 27-54-59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and has been sentenced, as follows: Section Sentence imposed 302 IPC rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 25,000/- ₹ 325 IPC rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- ₹ 323 IPC rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of 1,000/- ₹ 341 IPC rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of 1,000/- ₹ 27-54-59 Arms Act rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- ₹ All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3 2025:HHC:16735 3. 3 2025:HHC:16735 3. By way of application, dated 28th October, 2024 (Annexure P-3), 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 42 days, so that he could take care of his sick wife and look-after his agricultural land, with an endeavour to improve his economic condition. 4. According to the petitioner, his application for parole has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide order, dated 3rd February, 2025 (Annexure P-4), on the basis of non-recommendation of the District Magistrate, Shimla, on the objection raised by the Superintendent of Police, Shimla. 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- 4 2025:HHC:16735 4), by virtue of which, the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, has been rejected and sought the relief, as claimed in Annexure P-3. 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 42 days’ parole on 28th October, 2024, for agricultural purposes. Thereafter, his request was duly forwarded to District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate, Shimla and Superintendent of Police, Shimla, for recommendation/verification, as per the provisions of the Act, however, the District Magistrate, Shimla, vide letter, dated 26th December, 2024, has submitted the report not recommending the benefit of parole to the petitioner, on the ground that the house of the petitioner is located right next to the house of the victim and if the petitioner is released on parole, it will be a danger to the lives of the family of the victim. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition. 9. As per the record, the petitioner has undergone 4 years, 1 month and 7 days, including remission. He has 5 2025:HHC:16735 applied on 28th October, 2024, for releasing him on parole for taking care of his wife and for agricultural purpose. His case has not been recommended for parole by District Magistrate, Shimla, vide letter, dated 26th December, 2024 (Annexure R-4). 10. The said report has been made on the basis of the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Shimla. Alongwith the report, the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, has annexed the statement of Smt. Geeta Sharma (wife of the deceased), wherein, she has apprehended danger to her life and lives of her children, from the petitioner. 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 6 2025:HHC:16735 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 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 7 2025:HHC:16735 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 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 8 2025:HHC:16735 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 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 9 2025:HHC:16735 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 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 Jai, 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 10 2025:HHC:16735 “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) 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 Devrighat, Development Block Theog, Shimla, H.P. The Gram 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, Shimla. The said recommendation has been made on the ground that the wife of the deceased has objected to the relief of parole, to be granted to the petitioner, apprehending threat to her life and lives of her children. 11 2025:HHC:16735 So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the wife of the deceased, are concerned, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, is granted to the petitioner, as, 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 and to enable them to maintain their links with society. 15. In such situation, in the considered opinion of this Court, rejection order, dated 3rd February, 2025 (Annexure P-4), 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-3) is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole, for a period of 42 days. 16. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, in the following terms: (i) Order, dated 3rd February, 2025 (Annexure P-4), 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 42 days, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/-, with two ₹ sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction 12 2025:HHC:16735 of Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P.; (iii) The petitioner shall also undertake that he shall not cause any threat or inducement to 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, 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; (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, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P., for compliance. ( Virender Singh ) Judge May 30, 2025 ( rajni ) Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.05.30 12:12:56 IST