BALDEV vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Case type: Civil Writ Petition
Decided on: 30-03-2026

<div> 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 19712 of 2025 Reserved on: 5.3.2026 Date of Decision: 30.3.2026 Baldev ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dated 11.8.2025 (Annexure P-3) and releasing the petitioner on parole for 28 days. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 16 years, pay a fine of ₹2,80,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year in FIR No. 16 of 2023, dated 13.1.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 2 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, HP. The petitioner has completed more than two years, eight months and seventeen days in jail. He filed an application for parole on 24.3.2025 to meet his family members. Respondent No.2 objected to the grant of parole as the District Magistrate, Mandi has not recommended the parole based on the objection raised by Superintendent of Police, Mandi who has reported that the petitioner may re-engage in the supply of drugs. The rejection of the application is bad. The petitioner cannot be deprived of an opportunity to meet the relatives/family members. The nature of the offence was not relevant to determining the petitioner’s entitlement to parole. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted by learned Special Judge, (Family Court), Mandi, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sixteen years, pay a fine of ₹2,80,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. The petitioner was undergoing imprisonment at Model Central Jail, ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 3 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. Nahan, HP. The petitioner has undergone two years nine months and four-day substantive sentence as on 12.12.2025. His conduct inside the Jail was satisfactory. He filed an application for parole, which was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Mandi, HP, for recommendation/verification. District Magistrate, Mandi, stated that there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner’s family was unable to travel to Nahan to meet him. The reasons for seeking parole were not covered under the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act). Hence, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority. The grant of parole is a privilege and not a right, and a person can be released on parole after the satisfaction of the competent authority. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner’s case for parole was rejected without any justification. The petitioner has a right to meet his ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 4 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. family members. They are unable to visit Nahan due to their poverty. The term ‘any other sufficient reasons’ should be liberally construed to enable the convict to join the mainstream and maintain the social ties. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order rejecting the parole be set-aside. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the competent authority went through the application filed by the petitioner and found that the ground on which the parole was being sought was not covered under the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and had rightly dismissed the application. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan , (2017) 15 SCC 55: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 390: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1092 , that parole grants an opportunity to the convict to maintain his links with society. Convicts must breathe fresh air for at least some time. The parole should not be ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 5 2026:HHC:9157 denied to a convict if he maintains good conduct during incarceration and shows a tendency to reform himself. It was observed at page 60: - </div><table><tbody><tr><td>H “10. In the first instance, it would be necessary to understand the meaning and purpose of the grant of f parole. It would be better understood when considered in o contrast with furlough. These terms have been legally defined and judicially explained by the courts from time to time.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>t r 11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and u furlough. A parole can be defined as the conditional release of prisoners, i.e. an early release of a prisoner, o conditional on good behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It can also be C defined as a form of conditional pardon by which the convict is released before the expiration of his term. Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition that the parolee regularly reports to a supervising officer for a specified period. Such a release of the prisoner on parole can also be temporary on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it is to be treated as a mere suspension of the sentence for the time being, keeping the quantum of sentence intact. Release on parole is designed to afof rd some relief to the prisoners in certain specifei d exigencies. Such paroles are normally granted in certain situations, some of which may be as follows:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(i) a member of the prisoner's family has died or is seriously ill, or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(ii) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, sister's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or</td></tr></tbody></table><div> ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 6 2026:HHC:9157 </div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(iii) the temporary release of the prisoner is . necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or P carrying on any other agricultural operation of his land or his father's undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner; or</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>. H (iv) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause;</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>f (v) parole can be granted only after a portion of the sentence is already served.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>o (vi) if conditions of parole are not abided by, the t parolee may be returned to serve his sentence in r prison; such conditions may be such as those of committing a new offence, and</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>u (vii) parole may also be granted on the basis of aspects related to the health of the convict himself.</td></tr><tr><td>o C 12. Many State Governments have formulated guidelines on parole in order to bring out objectivity to the decision- making and to decide whether parole needs to be granted in a particular case or not. Such a decision in those cases is taken in accordance with the guidelines framed. Guidelines of some of the States stipulate two kinds of parole, namely, custody parole and regular parole. “Custody parole” is generally granted in emergent circumstances, like:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(i) death of a family member;</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(ii) marriage of a family member;</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(iii) serious illness of a family member; or</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(iv) any other emergent circumstances.</td></tr><tr><td>13. As far as “regular parole” is concerned, it may be given in the following cases:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(i) serious illness of a family member;</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(ii) critical conditions in the family on account of the accident or death of a family member;</td></tr></tbody></table><div> ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 7 2026:HHC:9157 </div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(iii) marriage of any member of the family of the convict;</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>. P (iv) delivery of a child by the wife of the convict if . there is no other family member to take care of the spouse at home;</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H (v) serious damage to the life or property of the family of the convict, including damage caused by natural calamities;</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>f (vi) to maintain family and social ties;</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>o (vii) to pursue the filing of a special leave petition t before this Court against a judgment delivered by r the High Court convicting or upholding the conviction, as the case may be.</td></tr><tr><td>u o 14. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief release from prison. It is conditional and is given in case of long-term C imprisonment. The period of sentence spent on furlough by the prisoners need not be undergone by him as is done in the case of parole. Furlough is granted as a good conduct remission.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the period of the sentence or the rest of his life in case he is a life convict. It is in this context that his release from jail for a short period has to be considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family problems but also to maintain his links with society. Convicts, too, must breathe fresh air for at least some time, provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens. Thus, the redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for the good of society must receive due weightage while they are undergoing a sentence of imprisonment.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16. This Court, through various pronouncements, has laid down the differences between parole and furlough, a few of which are as follows:</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 8 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. ( i ) Both parole and furlough are conditional releases. ( ii ) Parole can be granted in case of short-term imprisonment, whereas furlough is granted in case of long-term imprisonment. ( iii ) Duration of parole extends to one month, whereas in the case of furlough, it extends to fourteen days maximum. ( iv ) Parole is granted by the Divisional Commissioner, and furlough is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. ( v ) For parole, a specific reason is required, whereas furlough is meant for breaking the monotony of imprisonment. ( vi ) The term of imprisonment is not included in the computation of the term of parole, whereas it is vice versa in furlough. ( vii ) Parole can be granted a number of times, whereas there is a limitation in the case of furlough. ( viii ) Since furlough is not granted for any particular reason, it can be denied in the interest of society. (See State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar [State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar, (2006) 4 SCC 776: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 411] and State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh [State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394: 2000 SCC (Cri) 645] .) 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 can maintain his family and social contact. This reason finds justification in one of the objectives behind ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 9 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. sentence and punishment, namely, the 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 out 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 society. Another objective that this theory underlines is that even such convicts have the right to breathe fresh air, albeit for short periods. These gestures on the part of the State, along with other measures, go a long way towards the redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners. They are ultimately aimed at the good of society and, therefore, are in the public interest. 18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. The main purpose of such provisions is to afford 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 reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interests have also to be kept in mind while deciding as to whether, in a ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 10 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. 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 a threat to the law and order of 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 a great number of crimes are committed by the offenders who have been put back on the street after conviction. Therefore, while deciding 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 a tendency to reform himself to become a good citizen. 20. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for the 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 they aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Thus, the parole programme 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 matters of life and liberty. It is for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to 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 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 11 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. render 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 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 whether there can be any presumption that a person who is convicted of a serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal. The 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 categorised as a hardened criminal. In his case, consideration should be given 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 society. The mere nature of the offence committed by him should not be a factor to deny the parole outright. Wherever a person convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of the 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 offence, 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 good conduct, habitual offender or while judging whether he could be considered ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 12 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity, 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 the recourse made available to the prisoners. Being in a civilised society organised with law and a system as such, it is essential to ensure 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 (2) v. State (UT of Delhi) [Sunil Batra (2) v. State (UT of Delhi), (1980) 3 SCC 488: 1980 SCC (Cri) 777], Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] and Charles Sobraj v. Supt., Central Jail [Charles Sobraj v. Supt., Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC 104: 1978 SCC (Cri) 542] .] 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 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 “recidivism”, reflects the fact that the correctional therapy has not brought ( sic) any change in the mind of the criminal. It also shows that a criminal is hardcore, who is beyond correctional therapy. If the correctional therapy has not been made in itself, in a particular case, such a case can be rejected on the aforesaid ground, i.e. on its merits. ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 13 2026:HHC:9157 </div><table><thead><tr><th>25. We are not oblivious of the fact that there may be . hardcore criminals who, by reason of their crime and the P methods of dealing with the crime, form associations, loyalties and attitudes which tend to persist. There may . even be peer pressure when such convicts are out to H commit those crimes again. There may be pressure of being ostracised from delinquent groups, which may lead them to commit the crime again. Persistence in criminal f o behaviour may also be due to personality traits, most frequently due to pathological traits of personality, such as mental defectiveness, emotional instability, mental t conflicts, egocentrism and psychosis. In regard to relapse r or recidivism, Frank Exner, a noted criminologist and u sociologist, points out that the chances of repeating increase with the number of previous arrests and the o interval between the last and the next ofef nce becomes shortened as the number of previous crimes progresses C [ Frank Exner, Kriminologie, pp. 115-120]. The purpose of the criminological study is the prognosis of the improvable occasional offenders and that of the irredeemable habitual ofef nders and hardcore criminals. To differentiate the recidivists from non-recidivists and dangerous and hard-core criminals from occasional criminals had been enumerated by Exner in the following flowsheet:</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>(i) Hereditary weakness in the family life.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(ii) Increasing tempo of criminality.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(iii) Bad conditions in the parental home.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(iv) Bad school progress (especially in deportment and industriousness).</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(v) Failure to complete studies once begun.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(vi) Irregular work (work shyness).</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(vii) Onset of criminality before 18 years of age.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(viii) More than four previous sentences.</td></tr></tbody></table><div> ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 14 2026:HHC:9157 </div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(ix) Quick relapse of crime.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>(x) Interlocal criminality (mobility).</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>. P (xi) Psychopathic personality (diagnosis of an institutional doctor).</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>. (xii) Alcoholism.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>H (xiii) Release from the institution before 36 years of age.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>f (xiv) Bad conduct in the institution.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>o (xv) Bad social and family relations during the period of release.</td></tr><tr><td>t r At the same time, as criminality is the expression of the u “symptom” of a certain disorder in the offenders, they can be easily reformed if they are rightly diagnosed and the correct treatment is administered to them.”</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> 8. It was laid down in Harbhajan Singh v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3599, that the mere nature of the offence cannot be a ground to deny parole when the prisoner’s conduct shows a tendency to reform himself. It was observed: “17. For rejection of an application for parole, there are two grounds set out in Section 6 of the Act. Firstly, in case a prisoner is released, he will likely to endanger the security of the State. Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence committed under Section 302 IPC. But, in no way, it could be inferred that he is likely to endanger the security of the State, and even if so, the State has got enormous powers to put restrictions on the petitioner to protect the Security of the State. The second ground is the maintenance of public order. In this regard, in the response made by the District Magistrate, there is no reference as to whether he laid a threat to public order. ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 15 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. 18. When these two grounds, set out in Section 6 of the Act, are not reflected or mirrored in the report of the District Magistrate, we have to presume that the District Magistrate has given its report without application of mind. When a provision or a statute directs an officer to do a particular job in a particular manner, it shall be the duty of that officer to do the said job in that particular manner only. When a District Magistrate is directed to make a report on the basis of an assessment in an objective manner, he shall do it in that manner only. 19. Further, the rejection by the Government or the officer authorised by the Government should be on two grounds, namely, when it is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order, which are lacking in the instant case. 20. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, UT Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608: AIR 1981 SC 746 , Hon'ble Mr Justice Marshal has aptly said, and we quote. “I have previously stated my views that a prisoner does not shed his basic constitutional rights at the prison gate, and I fully support the court's holding that the interest of the inmate.” 21. In Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295 , it has been held that life means more than mere animal existence. The right to live is not restricted to mere animal existence. It means something more than just physical survival. 22. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597 , which was followed in Francis Coralie v. Delhi Administration , supra, it has been held that the right to live does not mean mere confinement to physical existence, but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. 23. Seeking parole/remission/premature release, or furlough, is not a right of a detenu. However, the same has to be considered in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The consideration should always keep in ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 16 2026:HHC:9157 </div><table><thead><tr><th>view the rights of the prisoners. The release of a prisoner . from jail for a short period has to be considered as an P opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family problems but also to maintain his links with . society. Convicts, too, must breathe fresh air for at least H some time, provided they maintain good conduct during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens.</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>f o 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55, in para 15 of the judgment, has held as under:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>t “15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for r the period of the sentence or the rest of his life in case u he is a life convict. It is in this context that his release from jail for a short period has to be considered as an o opportunity afof rded to him not only to solve his C personal and family problems but also to maintain his links with society. Convicts, too, must breathe fresh air for at least some time, provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens. Thus, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for the good of societies must receive due weightage while they are undergoing a sentence of imprisonment.”</td></tr><tr><td>25. From the discussion made hereinabove, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded a reformative theory. Under the said concept, an opportunity is to be granted to a person to get himself reformed, and in case he gets himself reformed, he will be a person to live in society. It is also worthwhile to extract the relevant portions of paras 17 and 18 of the said judgment herein:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>“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</td></tr></tbody></table><div> ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 17 2026:HHC:9157 </div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>some time so that he is able to maintain his family and . social contacts. This reason fni ds justification in one of P the objectives behind sentence and punishment, namely, the reformation of the convict……</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>. H 18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. The main purpose of such provisions is to afof rd f them an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society……”</td></tr><tr><td>o 26. Many a time, the State takes up the ground that the t prisoner has committed a heinous offence, and granting r parole/remission or premature release is likely to u endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. From the above discussion, we feel that o the conviction in a serious and heinous crime cannot be C the reason for denying parole per se. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interests have 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 a threat to the law and order of society, should not be released on parole. Wherever a person convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of the offence for which he was sentenced.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>27. In Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the behaviour of the prisoners shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though cautious, parole will be allowed to them so that their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 18 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. 28. In Shakuntala Devi v. State of Delhi, (1996) 36 DRJ 545 , it has been held as under: “5. In Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan , it has been held by their Lordship that “Release on parole is a wing of reformative process and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen.” In Inder Singh v. State, the Apex Court has devised another humanising strategy, viz., a guarded parole release every year, for at least a month, punctuating the total prison term, for maintaining his family ties. A prisoner cannot maintain his family ties by living in a small world of his own, cribbed, cabined and confined within the four walls of the prison. In the case of Inder Singh (supra), their lordships directed that:— “…….. if the behaviour of the prisoners shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though cautious, parole will be allowed to them so that their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up. After every period of one year, they should be released on parole for two months. ‘Their lordships further added that “Article 21 of the Constitution is the jurisdiction root for this legal liberalism.” 9. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (05.08.2020 - SC Order): MANU/SCOR/34434/2020 that the parole cannot be rejected on the ground that the crime is heinous. It was observed: “Merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in society are factors de hors Section 2. Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all, and the Senior Superintendent of Police and the ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 19 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner is not "incapacitated" from committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released from prison. 10. Section 3 of the Prisoners Act provides for the temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds, which reads as under: - “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds. (1) The Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner if the Government is satisfied that, - (a) a member of the prisoner’s family has died or is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner’s son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying or any other agricultural operation on his land and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner’s family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; or (d) it is desirable so to do for any other sufficient cause. (2). The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the Government so as not to exceed,- (a) Where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), two weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 20 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), six weeks. (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The Government may, by notification, authorise any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein.” 11. It was laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Babbu Singh alias Tidda Vs. State of Punjab and others, Cr. Writ Petition No.9403 of 2022, decided on 21.10.2012, that needing one’s family is one of the most important facets of the right to life, and this ground for parole is legal and valid. It was observed: - “9. A cumulative reading of the above-said judgments would show that meeting one’s family is one of the most important facets of the right to life and thus, said ground for parole is legal and valid and in accordance with law.” 12. Similar view was taken by Bombay High Court in Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2024:BHC-AS:27081-DB that the purpose of parole or furlough is to enable the inmates to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with the family matters. If a person can be released during the period of grief, he can be granted parole to share a movement of joy. It was observed: - ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 21 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. “7. We have heard the learned counsel, Mr More, for the petitioner and Mr Venegavkar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, who has vehemently opposed the release of the petitioner on Parole. When we consider the aim and object of the Rules formulated for releasing the convict either on parole or on furlough, one thing is very prominent, i.e. the said release is warranted so as to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with the family matters and also to save him from the evil effects of continuous prison life and maintain his mental balance by creating active interest in life and to enable him to remain hopeful for the future. Time and again, the Rules have received a positive interpretation, and the Courts have construed the Rules liberally in favour of a convict. The provisions of Parole and Furlough have been time and again looked towards as a humanistic approach towards the convicts lodged in jail for an act purely attributed to them. However, while they remain to be incarcerated and are undergoing the punishment for their act, in order to afford an opportunity to them to be in touch with the outside world and to arrange for their family affairs as though behind bars, the convict continue to be someone's son, husband, father, brother and upon being released, though for temporary period on Furlough or in an emergency situation on parole, like death of a member of family or or to attend to a member on account of his illness, the Furlough and Parole have received approval as conditional release of a prisoner which is governed by the Rules of 1959, governing such a release from custody though for a short temporary period by ensuring that he duly returns in the prison. 8. The core of the benefits being made available under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, enacted in exercise of the power conferred by clause 5 and 28 of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894, being to repose the faith of a convict in the system, and the fact that he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 22 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. imprisonment or a sentence imposed upon him, only upon his release periodically either for certain reason or otherwise on account of undergoing a particular number of days in incarceration, his hope to be alive and his bond with his near and dear ones may be encouraged and also inspire his confidence in the prison system. If one turn to Rule 19, which contemplate release of a prisoner on Parole and in case of 'Emergency' Parole for a period of 7 days, when there is a death in the family which include his close relative like grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, spouse, son, daughter etc., on 'Special Parole' for the period of 4 days, for attending the happy occasions like marriage of son, daughter, siblings and 'Regular Parole', so as to cater to the need of his family which includes serious illness of father/ mother/ spouse/ son/daughter, delivery of his wife or in order to cater to the family in case of natural calamities, such as house collapse, flood, fire, earthquake etc., we miserably fail to understand why a happy occasion like this, where his son who has secured an admission in a prestigious University in Australia and since he seek temporary release relief on that count, so that he can arrange for the financial resources and also bid farewell to his son, who is going to depart from the country for a period of two years, why the benefit to Parole shall be denied to him by restricting it to the circumstances set out therein and not in a situation which the petitioner has brought before us. Grief is an emotion, so is happiness, and if Parole can be granted to share grief, why not to share a happy occasion or moment? 9. The petitioner has placed on record the offer letter from the concerned University and a reading of the same would necessarily lead as to an inference, that for getting him admitted in institution and for arranging for his traveling expenses, huge amount has to be garnered and unless and until the father is available to arrange for this amount, his young son may loose a chance and the offer which he has received. ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 23 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. In addition, we also feel that this is a moment to rejoice, when his son deserves a goodbye with best wishes being bestowed upon him from his father, and we do not intend that he should be kept away from this moment, which brings pride to him, being a father. If, for the purpose of the celebration of marriage, parole can be granted, we fail to understand why, merely because the rule does not contemplate such a contingency, the benefit of this rule shall not be extended to the petitioner. ” 13. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents that the petitioner’s case is not covered under Section 3 of the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) cannot be accepted. The term any other reason cannot be interpreted strictly to deprive a person of the opportunity to meet his family members. 14. The application for parole was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was involved in the offence of dealing with narcotics, and he is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on parole. This ground was not justified. 15. This Court held in Harbhajan Singh v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3599, that the nature of the offence cannot be a ground to deny parole when the prisoner’s conduct shows a tendency to reform himself. It was observed: “17. For rejection of an application for parole, there are two grounds set out in Section 6 of the Act. Firstly, in case ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 24 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. a prisoner is released, he will likely endanger the security of the State. Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence committed under Section 302 IPC. But, in no way, it could be inferred that he is likely to endanger the security of the State, and even if so, the State has got enormous powers to put restrictions on the petitioner to protect the Security of the State. The second ground is the maintenance of public order. In this regard, in the response made by the District Magistrate, there is no reference as to whether he made a threat to public order. 18. When these two grounds, set out in Section 6 of the Act, are not reflected or mirrored in the report of the District Magistrate, we have to presume that the District Magistrate has given its report without application of mind. When a provision or a statute directs an officer to do a particular job in a particular manner, it shall be the duty of that officer to do the said job in that particular manner only. When a District Magistrate is directed to make a report on the basis of an assessment in an objective manner, he shall do it in that manner only. 19. Further, the rejection by the Government or the officer authorised by the Government should be on two grounds, namely, when it is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order, which are lacking in the instant case. 20. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, UT Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608: AIR 1981 SC 746 , Hon'ble Mr Justice Marshal has aptly said, and we quote. “I have previously stated my views that a prisoner does not shed his basic constitutional rights at the prison gate, and I fully support the court's holding that the inmate's interest of the inmate.” 21. In Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295 , it has been held that life means more than mere animal existence. The right to live is not restricted to mere animal existence. It means something more than just physical survival. ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 25 2026:HHC:9157 </div><table><thead><tr><th>22. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: . AIR 1978 SC 597, which was followed in Francis Coralie v. P Delhi Administration, supra, it has been held that the right to life does not mean mere confinement to physical . existence, but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>H 23. Seeking parole/remission/premature release, or f furlough, is not a right of a detenu. However, the same o has to be considered in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The consideration should always keep in view the rights of the prisoners. The release of a prisoner t from jail for a short period has to be considered as an r opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal u and family problems but also to maintain his links with society. Convicts, too, must breathe fresh air for at least o some time, provided they maintain good conduct during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55, in para 15 of the judgment has held as under:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>“15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the period of the sentence or the rest of his life in case he is a life convict. It is in this context that his release from jail for a short period has to be considered as an opportunity afof rded to him not only to solve his personal and family problems but also to maintain his links with society. Convicts, too, must breathe fresh air for at least some time, provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens. Thus, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for the good of societies must receive due weightage while they are undergoing a sentence of imprisonment.”</td></tr><tr><td>25. From the discussion made hereinabove, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded a reformative</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 26 2026:HHC:9157 </div><table><thead><tr><th>theory. Under the said concept, an opportunity is to be . granted to a person to get himself reformed, and in case P he gets himself reformed, he will be a person to live in society. It is also worthwhile to extract the relevant portions of paras 17 and 18 of the said judgment herein:</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>. H “17. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that amongst the various grounds on which parole can be f granted, the most important ground, which stands out, o 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 t social contact. This reason finds justification in one of r the objectives behind sentence and punishment, namely, the reformation of the convict……</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>u 18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide o for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in C jails. The main purpose of such provisions is to afof rd them an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society…”</td></tr><tr><td>26. Many a time, the State takes up the ground that the prisoner has committed a heinous offence, and granting parole/remission or pre-mature release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. From the above discussion, we feel that the conviction in a serious and heinous crime cannot be the reason for denying parole per se. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interests have 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 a threat to the law and order of society, should not be released on parole. Wherever a person convicted has</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 27 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of the offence for which he was sentenced. 27. In Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 161 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the behaviour of the prisoners shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though cautious, parole will be allowed to them so that their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up. 28. In Shakuntala Devi v. State of Delhi, (1996) 36 DRJ 545 , it has been held as under: “5. In Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan , it has been held by their Lordship that “Release on parole is a wing of reformative process and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen.” In Inder Singh v. State, the Apex Court has devised another humanising strategy, viz., a guarded parole release every year, for at least a month, punctuating the total prison term, for maintaining his family ties. A prisoner cannot maintain his family ties by living in a small world of his own, cribbed, cabined and confined within the four walls of the prison. In the case of Inder Singh (supra), their lordships directed that:— “…….. if the behaviour of the prisoners shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though cautious, parole will be allowed to them so that their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up. After every period of one year, they should be released on parole for two months. ‘Their lordships further added that “Article 21 of the Constitution is the jurisdiction root for this legal liberalism.” 16. Rule 3(2) of the Prisoners Act specifically provides that the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police shall ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 28 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. give their opinion whether the temporary release on parole was opposed on the ground that the prisoner was dangerous to the security of the State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the Rule only provides two grounds for opposing the application for parole. 17. In the present case, the ground taken by the respondents does not fall within the purview of Rule 3(2) of the Act, and the rejection of the application for parole was bad. 18. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for 28 days subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Jail with an undertaking to maintain good conduct during the period of parole and to surrender before the Superintendent Jail after the expiry of the period of parole. The Probation Officer is also directed to maintain a close watch on the activities of the petitioner and to report any deviation from the direction issued by the Court. 19. The Superintendent Jail is free to impose any other suitable condition at the time of the release of the petitioner. ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS 29 2026:HHC:9157 High Court of H.P. 20. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. ( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge th 30 March, 2026 (Chander) ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 14:31:47 :::CIS</div>