IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10025 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.06.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Karan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who is a life convict and at present, is undergoing life imprisonment in Model Central Jail Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, though was granted benefit of parole, as prayed for by him, vide order dated 29.05.2026, but since he is unable to furnish personal as well as surety bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to issue direction to the respondents to permit him to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Kanda, instead of the District Magistrate, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition as well as other material adduced on record reveals that petitioner has been convicted for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in case FIR No. 156 of 2016 registered at Police Station Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. Certificate of the imprisonment placed on record (Annexure P-1) reveals that petitioner has already undergone sentence of twelve years and nine months including period spent as an undertrial. It is also not in dispute that prior to grant of parole vide order dated 29.05.2026, petitioner was granted benefit of parole on two occasions. After successfully completing the leave period, petitioner surrendered before the jail authorities well within time and there is no adverse report against him. Otherwise also, it is not in dispute that petitioner was granted benefit of third parole on account of his good behaviour and satisfactory past track record, whereby he never violated the terms and conditions of parole. Petitioner herein, who is a resident of District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, is finding it difficult to arrange a surety at Rampur and as such, approached the respondents for permitting him to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of Jail Superintendent, but such prayer of him came to be rejected vide order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P-3), wherein petitioner came to be informed that as per provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary -3- Release) Act and Rules, the requisite bonds are required to be furnished to the satisfaction of the concerned District Authorities. 3. It has been averred in the petition that in similar facts and circumstances, two convicts namely Lalan Kumar and Krishan Kumar Sawhney were permitted to furnish personal/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail Kanda, however, similar prayer of the petitioner has been rejected for totally unjustifiable reasons. Having taken note of aforesaid averments contained in the petition, this Court passed order dated 24.06.2026, which reads as under:- “Pursuant to order dated 23.6.2026, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 24.6.2026 issued under the signature of Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith certain documents, perusal whereof reveals that in the cases of convicts namely Lalan Kumar and Krishan Kumar, permission was granted to furnish personal/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.2.00 lakh to the satisfaction of Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda. However, prayer made by the petitioner to permit him to furnish personal/surety bonds before Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, has been denied on the ground that as per Rule 3 (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969, (in short the Rules), bonds are required to be furnished to the satisfaction of the concerned district authorities. 2. It also emerges from the aforesaid communication that for the first time, petitioner was released on parole in compliance to directions dated 12.1.2024 issued by this Court in CWP No. 9739 of 2023, subject to furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Superintendent of Jail, whereas for the second time, he was released on parole by the competent authority despite non-recommendation of the concerned district authorities with direction to furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of concerned District Magistrate Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. -4- 3. During proceedings of the case, Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner made available notification dated 31.12.2012, issued by the Department of Home, Government of Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof clearly reveals that an amendment was carried out in Rule 3(3) of the afore Rules, whereby two provisos came to incorporated in the aforesaid Rule. Vide first Proviso, it came to be incorporated that one time verification shall remain in force for a period of three years from the date of its issue by the District Magistrate unless, otherwise directed by him and shall be taken into consideration as and when the prisoner is let off on parole/furlough by the competent authority, whereas vide second Proviso, it has been further provided that security bond and surety bond shall remain in force for a period of three years or as long as the prisoner remains confined in the prison under a sentence of imprisonment from the date of its due attestation unless, otherwise directed by the District Magistrate or the security/surety bond is forfeited/cancelled. 4. Having carefully perused aforesaid notification, this Court finds that petitioner herein was lastly released on parole on 20.6.2026, meaning thereby, petitioner had furnished surety bonds to avail the benefit of parole after 20.6.2025. Since at the time of grant of second parole on 20.6.2026, petitioner had already furnished surety bonds, which as per amendment in Rule 3 shall remain in force for a period of three years or so long as the prisoner remains confined in the prison under a sentence of imprisonment from the date of its due attestation, there appears to be no requirement, if any, for the petitioner to furnish fresh security / bonds as is being insisted in his case. 5. Having perused aforesaid notification, learned Additional Advocate General prays for and is granted two days’ time to have instructions as to whether surety bonds/security bonds furnished by the petitioner at the time of his being granted second parole have been forfeited or cancelled by the District Magistrate or not ? List on 29.6.2026.” 4. Pursuant to afore order, respondent-State has filed detailed instructions dated 24.06.2026, stating therein as under:- -5- “So far as the case of convict Lalan Kumar is concerned, he was granted parole for period of 28 days (his first parole) on the recommendation of the concerned District Authorities with the condition to furnish personal or surety bond in sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, East Champaran Motihari, District Motihari, Bihar vide this office warrant dated 30/02/2024 (Annexure: H). Subsequently, he submitted an application dated 05/06/2025 Annexure: J, requested the Director General of Prisons to allow him to furnish his personal as well as surety bond to the satisfaction of Superintendent Model Central Jail, Kanda as his younger brother and mother were illiterate and were unable to complete the formalities for furnishing surety bonds before the DM, East Champaran, Bihar. Upon examination of the record, it was observed that recommendation received from the District Magistrate did not specify the conditions to be imposed while releasing the convict on parole in the letter dated 22/12/2024 (Annexure: K). Accordingly, vide letter dated 07/08/2025 (Annexure: L) addressed to the concerned District Magistrate, it was requested to mention the conditions to be imposed while releasing the convict on parole alongwith his comments on the release warrant & application of convict. Since no response was received from the concerned District Magistrate and the convict had also approached the Hon'ble High Court regarding the pendency of his request, the competent authority considered his application in the peculiar facts and circumstances that his family members are illiterate and are not able to furnish surety bond at DM Office and being in some cases Hon'ble High Court has ordered that bonds be furnished to the satisfaction of concerned Superintendent Jail where they are lodged, his request was allowed vide this office letter dated 31/10/2025 (Annexure: M). Similarly, convict Krishanh Kumar Sahini s/o Virender Sahini was allowed parole vide this office letter dated 12/01/2026 (Annexure: N) on the recommendation of District Authorities. He was also a first-time parolee. Convict vide application dated 23/02/2026 (Annexure: O) requested to allow him to furnish bonds to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Jail instead of concerned District Magistrate which was allowed by this office based on reason that he was not released on parole earlier and was allowed to furnish bond to Superintendent Jail (Annexure: P). Therefore, -6- the cases of Lalan Kumar and Krishan Kumar Sahini cannot be treated as identical to the case of the present petitioner. Both the aforesaid convicts are first time parolee, whereas the petitioner has already availed parole on earlier occasions. Most importantly, during his second parole, the petitioner had furnished the requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned District Magistrate and successfully complied with the conditions imposed him. Having once complied with the same requirement, the petitioner cannot now contend that compliance with such conditions is impossible. It is, therefore, requested that the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh may kindly be apprised accordingly on the next date of hearing fixed for 24/06/2026.” 5. Crux of the aforesaid communication is that since there was no educated person in the house of the aforesaid convicts, coupled with the fact that convicts are financially poor, their parole orders were modified to the extent that they were permitted to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail instead of District Magistrate of the concerned Districts. 6. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to notification dated 31.12.2012 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Home, also argued that by virtue of the amendment carried out in Rule 3(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969, two provisos were incorporated into the aforesaid Rule. It was further submitted that the surety bond furnished by the petitioner at the time of availing his second parole is still valid and subsisting and as such, he is not required to -7- furnish a fresh surety bond. However, vide communication dated 28.06.2026 issued by the Director General, Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, this Court came to be apprised that surety bond furnished by the petitioner at the time of his being granted second parole stands forfeited on account of expiry of parole period. Since it is not in dispute that benefit of parole, as prayed for, already stands extended to the petitioner vide order dated 29.05.2026, this Court sees no reason to go into the question of recommendation, if any, made by the District Magistrate of the area concerned, rather at this stage, question, which needs determination, is that “whether prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for permitting him to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of Superintendent Jail, Kanda could have been rejected by the respondents on the pretext that in terms of Rules, requisite bond is required to be furnished to the satisfaction of the concerned District authorities?” 7. Though in terms of Clause 3(3) of Rules, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, that requisite bond is required to be furnished to the satisfaction of concerned District authorities, but once afore condition was relaxed by the jail authorities in cases of two convicts namely Lalan Kumar and Krishan Kumar Sawhney (Annexure P-5 colly), coupled with the fact that in past, petitioner, while availing benefit of parole on two occasions, had never sought leave to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of Superintendent -8- Jail, this Court sees no impediment in permitting the petitioner to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of Superintendent of Jail. Otherwise very object and purpose of furnishing personal bond is to secure presence of the convict after completion of leave period. Since petitioner, who is admittedly resident of District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, is ready and willing to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Kanda, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to the jail authorities, who, otherwise in the event of default, if any, on the part of the petitioner, shall be entitled to forfeit bonds furnished by the petitioner before the Superintendent Jail, Kanda. 8. Otherwise also, careful perusal of the order dated 29.06.2026, thereby granting the benefit of parole to the petitioner (available at page No. 43 of the paper book), reveals that the prisoner was required, before his release on parole, to furnish, to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, a personal bond or a surety bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the faithful observance of the conditions specified in the release warrant, meaning thereby, petitioner has option of furnishing either a personal bond or a surety bond. Once petitioner is ready and willing to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, coupled with the fact that at this stage, no recommendation, if any, of the District Magistrate, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, is required for the reason that petitioner has already been granted benefit of parole vide order dated 29.05.2026, no -9- prejudice, if any, can be said to be caused to the respondents in case the petitioner is permitted to furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail. Recommendation, if any, of the District Magistrate, Rampur is necessary for grant of parole, but in the instant case, it appears that having taken note of previous conduct of the petitioner, jail authorities have already extended benefit of parole to the petitioner, but he is unable to avail the same on account of his inability to furnish personal bond or surety bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rampur. 9. Though at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argued that once in terms of order dated 29.05.2026, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on parole, petitioner is required to reside at VPO Madukar, Police Station and Tehsil Shahbad, District Rampur, petitioner can always furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rampur, but this Court, having taken note of the fact that condition of furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate of the area concerned was exempted in two cases of life convicts namely Lalan Kumar and Krishan Kumar Sawhney, coupled with the fact that in past on two occasions, petitioner never violated the terms and conditions of the parole, is of the view that petitioner also deserves to be given similar treatment because in that situation, no loss of any kind shall be caused to the respondents, rather the -10- petitioner, who at present is lodged in Kanda Jail would be saved from ordeal of arranging surety at District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. 10. At this stage, reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Kesar Singh Guleria Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1985 CRI. L.J. 1202, wherein it specifically came to be ruled that requirement of furnishing the security bond and the surety bond has to be viewed against the backdrop of the object and purpose of the enactment and the constitutional provisions. Most importantly, in afore judgment, Division Bench of this Court ruled that the security bond cannot be regarded as mandatory. The Court observed that in appropriate cases, for example, a case in which a prisoner is unable even to meet the expenses of his journey, which are otherwise required to be borne by the Government, it would defeat the apparent purpose of the enactment and lead to manifest absurdity, hardship and injustice if the prisoner is required to furnish a security bond. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “17. The requirement of furnishing the security bond and the surety bond has to be viewed against the aforesaid background as well as against the backdrop of the object and purpose of the enactment and the constitutional provisions referred to earlier. Viewed accordingly, the execution of personal bond and security bond, and, more particularly, the security bond cannot be regarded as mandatory. In appropriate cases, such as, for example, a case in which a prisoner is unable even to foot the expenses of his journey which are required to be borne by the Government it would defeat the apparent purpose of the enactment and lead to manifest absurdity, hardship and injustice if the prisoner is required to furnish a -11- security bond. It would be extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible, for such a prisoner and his family to find persons sufficiently solvent to stand as sureties. The law governing temporary release cannot be so construed as to permit its operation harshly against the poor and advantageously in favour of the non-poor in our Socialist Republic which aims at the establishment of an egalitarian society based on social justice. Indeed, any such construction would lay the relevant provisions of law open to challenge as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and such a construction must, of necessity, be eschewed. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 and the various conditions in Form-B must, therefore, be construed as directory in the sense that they must be regarded as investing the Releasing Authority with discretion of dispensing with the requirement of furnishing ends in appropriate cases so that it should become possible for the poor, as easily as the rich, to obtain temporary release. The discretion to waive the requirement of furnishing bonds must be exercised in such cases bearing in mind other relevant considerations such as family ties, roots in the community, history-sheet including any record as to the prior release on parole or furlough etc. Even if it is considered necessary in such cases to obtain a surety bond without a security bond, there should be no rigid insistence that the prisoner should satisfy the Releasing Authority that he is solvent enough to pay the amount of the bond. Indeed, in appropriate cases, the prisoner may be released on his personal bond without monetary obligation if other relevant factors, such as those mentioned above, are established. The Releasing Authority is thus under an obligation to examine in each case of temporary release whether or not the prisoner should be required to furnish the security bond and, if so, to fix the amount of such bonds with due regard to the circumstances of the case. Such amount should not in any event, be excessive. 20. The Releasing Authority, in the exercise of its power under the Act and the Rules, will be guided by the principles adverted to above. The paramount consideration which the Releasing Authority will always bear in mind is that the right to be released on bail or furlough, as the case may be, upon satisfaction of the other conditions, is not defeated merely because the prisoner, on account of his impecunious condition, is unable to offer a security bond or surety bond.” -12- 11. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court of Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.3130 of 2025, titled as Khartaram Vs. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary & Anr., wherein afore Court, while issuing number of directions, observed that legislative intent of the provisions for the sanction and release of prisoners on parole is to encourage good conduct and serve as a reformative and humanitarian measure. It also serves to preserve the prisoner’s familial and social ties and to aid his reintegration in the society. In afore case, Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court held that Parole is not a matter of executive largesse only and is rather a recognized facet of the rehabilitative philosophy underlying penal jurisprudence. Being an integral facet of the reformative theory of punishment, parole and it’s conditions must conform to constitutional mandates of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “8. There is no gain saying that legislative intent of the provisions for the sanction and release of prisoners on parole is to encourage good conduct and serve as a reformative and humanitarian measure. It also serves to preserve the prisoner's familial and social ties and to aid his reintegration in the society. Parole is not a matter of executive largesse only and is rather a (Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025] recognized facet of the rehabilitative philosophy underlying penal jurisprudence. Being an integral facet of the reformative theory of punishment, parole and it's conditions must conform to -13- constitutional mandates of fairness, reasonableness and non- arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Conditions imposed for grant of parole must, therefore, be reasonable, non-arbitrary and tailored to the circumstances of the convict, for actual release on parole. Any insistence on sureties from an indigent prisoner who is unable to fulfill that condition, particularly after repeated judicial interventions to the contrary, frustrates and renders the concession of sanctioned parole illusory besides defeating its constitutional and statutory purpose. 13. In somewhat similar circumstances, Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Natia Jiria Vs. State of Gujarat 1 observed that where there is no material to disbelieve a prisoner's plea of poverty, the authority is not merely permitted but obliged to release him on a personal bond. It recognized that even a nominal surety requirement can operate as a total bar for the indigent, 1 1984 (1) 25 Guj LR 464 (Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 06:28:10 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:66-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLW-3130/2025] thereby converting poverty into a disqualifying factor. The Full bench judgment expressed the its sentiments observing that Poverty is not a crime. Discretion vested in authorities must be exercised to advance constitutional protection, not undermine it. 12. It is not the case, where petitioner is not ready and willing to furnish personal bond or surety bond, rather his precise case is that he be permitted to furnish personal or surety bond to the satisfaction of Jail Superintendent. In the case at hand, petitioner, after his having been convicted, has lost his social ties, if any, at his native place, which falls within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, Rampur, coupled with the fact that his entire family has been shifted to Punjab, in afore background, admittedly there would be difficulty for the petitioner to arrange for a surety -14- at his native place, which falls within jurisdiction of the District Magistrate Rampur (UP). 13. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that very object and purpose of taking surety is to ensure that convict, after his having completed parole period, surrenders/returns to the jail within stipulated time. In the event of the convict's failure to comply with the conditions of parole, the person, who had furnished surety at the time of grant of parole becomes liable to secure the presence of the convict and in default thereof, he/she shall be liable to pay the amount of the surety bond in accordance with law. Since in the case at hand, petitioner is ready and willing to furnish personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of Jail Superintendent, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to the respondents, rather very purpose and object of putting the convict to condition of furnishing personal and surety bonds would stand accomplished. 15. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside and condition No. 5 as contained in order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Director General Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, thereby granting benefit of parole to the petitioner, is modified to the extent that he is permitted to furnish personal as well as security bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the -15- satisfaction of the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 30, 2026 (Sunil)