Parole cannot be denied solely based on the nature of offense or apprehension of recidivism.

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 16 years of rigorous imprisonment

Having served over two years and eight months with satisfactory jail conduct, he applied for 28 days of parole on 24.3.2025 to meet his family members

The competent authority rejected the application on 11.8.2025 based on reports from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Mandi.

The rejection was grounded on apprehensions that the petitioner might re-engage in drug supply, the fact that his family could travel to the jail to meet him, and the assertion that meeting family was not a "sufficient cause" under the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968

The court primarily applied Section 3 and Section 6 of the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, noting that Section 3(1)(d) allows release for "any other sufficient cause"

It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, which characterized parole as a reformative tool essential for maintaining social and family ties

Further, the court followed Harbhajan Singh v. State of H.P. and Shor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, establishing that the heinous nature of a crime or the mere nature of the offence cannot be the sole basis for denying parole

It also applied Rule 3(2) of the Prisoners Act, which restricts grounds for opposing parole to cases where the prisoner’s release is dangerous to "security of the State" or "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order"

The court reasoned that the term "any other sufficient cause" must be liberally construed to include maintaining family ties, which is a facet of the right to life under Article 21

It rejected the respondent's argument that the petitioner’s family could visit him in jail, stating that prisoners do not shed their constitutional rights at the gate and must be allowed to breathe fresh air to facilitate reformation

Regarding the apprehension that the petitioner would re-engage in drug supply, the court found this justification legally insufficient under Rule 3(2) of the Act

The court noted that unless the State demonstrates a specific threat to public order or state security, parole cannot be denied based on the nature of the conviction, especially when the prisoner’s conduct in jail has been satisfactory

The court held that meeting family is a valid legal ground for parole and that the reasons provided for rejection fell outside the purview of the Act

It directed the petitioner’s release on parole for 28 days subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000, two sureties of the same amount, and an undertaking to maintain good conduct

The court further ordered the Probation Officer to monitor the petitioner’s activities and authorized the Superintendent of Jail to impose additional suitable conditions