1 2025:HHC:17528 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 3889 of 2025 Decided on : 04.06 .2025 Devi Ram …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. Ganesh Barowalia, Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral) By way of the present writ petition, petitioner- Devi Ram has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive relief, amongst others: 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17528 “i) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, whereby the respondents & more particularly respondent No. 4 may kindly be directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 42 days in terms of the prescribed Rules of 1969 as framed under the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, so that the petitioner may be in a position to solve his personal as well as his family problems and be allowed to maintain family and social ties, in the interest of justice.” 2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted for the offence, punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., vide judgment, dated 6th May, 2023, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and to pay a fine of 1, ₹ 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. 3. The petitioner is stated to have undergone total substantive sentence of four years, five months and twenty two days, in terms of the custody certificate (Annexure P- 3). 3 2025:HHC:17528 4. The petitioner applied for grant of parole for a period of 28 days, by way of application, dated 26th April, 2024 (Annexure P-4), in order to meet his ailing mother. 5. According to the petitioner, his application has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide letter, dated 31st December, 2024, (Annexure P-5), without assigning any justifiable reason. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order (Annexure P- 5), by virtue of which, the request of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, has been rejected. A prayer has also been made to allow his request for parole. 7. When put to notice, the factual position, with regard to conviction and sentence has not been disputed by the respondents. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner had applied for grant of 28 days’ parole, on 26th April, 2024, to meet his mother. 8. According to the respondents, the request of the petitioner was duly forwarded to the District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Sonipat, Haryana, however, District Magistrate, Sonipat, 4 2025:HHC:17528 Haryana, has not recommended the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner may abscond after being released on parole and may commit similar offence. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition. Heard. 10. As per the custody certificate, the total sentence undergone by the petitioner is four years, five months and twenty two days. The petitioner has applied for 28 days’ parole, which was recommended to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Sonipat, Haryana, vide letter, dated 4th November, 2024 (Annexure R-4). 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 5 2025:HHC:17528 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 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 District Magistrate, in the letter, dated 4th November, 2024 (Annexure R-4) has mentioned that the release of the convict (petitioner) does not pose any threat to the security of the State, however, he may abscond after 6 2025:HHC:17528 being released on parole and may again commit similar offence. 14. In this view of the matter, being guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asfaq’s case (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of the application of the petitioner for grant of parole, merely, on the ground that he has been convicted for the offence punishable under NDPS Act, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 15. Consequently, rejection order, dated 31st December, 2024 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No. 2, is quashed and set aside. The prayer, so made in the application for parole 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 31st December, 2024 (Annexure P-5), 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 7 2025:HHC:17528 of Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.; (iii) 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; (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, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., for compliance. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 04, 2025 ( rajni ) Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.06.04 14:58:30 IST