1 2025:HHC:17024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 3940 of 2025 Reserved on : 27.05.2025 Decided on : 02.06.2025 Tota 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. Madan Gopal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate Generla. Virender Singh, Judge. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner- Tota Ram 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:17024 “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 31.12.2024, 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 mentioned above and thereby allow him to visit his home so petitioner meet with his family.” 2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., vide judgment, dated 13th December, 2023, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 376 (2) (j), 376 (2) (l) and 376 (2) (n) IPC and has been sentenced, as follows: Section Sentence imposed Default sentence 376(2)(j) IPC rigorous imprisonment for life, i.e. till remainder of natural life and to pay a fine of ₹ 40,000/- simple imprisonment, for a period of two years 376(2)(l) IPC rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall extend to remainder of natural life and to pay a fine of ₹ 40,000/- simple imprisonment for a period of two years 376(2)(n)IPC rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall extend to remainder of natural life and to pay a fine of simple imprisonment for a period of two years 3 2025:HHC:17024 ₹ 40,000/- All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. 3. By way of application, dated 28th 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, in order to meet his family members. 4. According to the petitioner, his application for parole has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide order, dated 31st December, 2024, (Annexure P-2), on the basis of non-recommendation by the District Authorities and the objections raised by the victim. 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. 4 2025:HHC:17024 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 and sought the relief, as claimed in Annexure P-1. 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), in order to comply with the statutory provisions, the same was sent to the District Authorities of the concerned District for recommendation. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, after consulting the Superintendent of Police and after inquiry the matter, has not recommended the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole. 8. As per the stand taken by the respondents, in view of the non-recommendation of the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, by the District Authorities, the competent Authority, vide letter dated 31st December, 2024, has rejected the parole application of the petitioner. 5 2025:HHC:17024 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition. 10. As per the record, the petitioner has undergone 4 years, 4 months and 24 days. He has applied on 28th August, 2024, for releasing him on parole in order to meet his family members. 11. Perusal of the record shows that the District Magistrate, vide letter, dated 9th October, 2024 (Annexure R-4) has not recommended the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, on the ground that he has been convicted in a heinous crime, under Section 376 IPC. 12. Alongwith the letter of District Magistrate, the copy of the communication received from Superintendent of Police, Mandi, has also been annexed, who has also negated the prayer for releasing the petitioner on parole, in view of his involvement in a heinous crime, i.e. under Section 376 IPC. 13. The statement of one Sheela Devi has also been annexed with the reply, who has apprehended threat to her life and lives of her family members, in the hands of the petitioner. She has also got recorded that the house of the 6 2025:HHC:17024 petitioner is adjacent to her house, whereas, Up Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Rod has recommended the case of the petitioner. Not only this, the Ward Member of Gram Panchayat Rod has also recommended the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole. 14. Considering the said fact, merely on the ground of opposition by the victim, relief, as sought in the present petition, cannot be declined, as 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 para 17, 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 7 2025:HHC:17024 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) 15. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the victim, 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. 16. In such situation, in the considered opinion of this Court, rejection order, dated 31st December, 2024 (Annexure P-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 8 2025:HHC:17024 petitioner is ordered to be released on parole, for a period of 28 days. 17. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, in the following terms: (i) Order, dated 31st December, 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, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.; (iii) The petitioner shall also undertake that he shall not cause any threat or inducement to the family of the victim, 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. 9 2025:HHC:17024 18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. 19. Registry to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., for compliance. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 02, 2025 ( rajni ) Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.06.02 15:55:49 IST