Prisoners Should Be Allowed To Solve Family's Problems, Maintain Link With Society: HP High Court Grants Parole
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that maintaining family and social ties is important for prisoners, and that parole should be allowed to them to attend to their personal and family responsibilities.Justice Virender Singh held that “Mere registration of the FIR cannot be made basis to decline parole to the petitioner, as, the prisoners should be allowed to maintain their family...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that maintaining family and social ties is important for prisoners, and that parole should be allowed to them to attend to their personal and family responsibilities.
Justice Virender Singh held that “Mere registration of the FIR cannot be made basis to decline parole 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.”
In march 2020, the petitioner was convicted for the offences, punishable under Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) Sections 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) & 14 (3) (punishment for abetment) of the POCSO Act and Sections 66-E (violation of privacy) and 67-B (publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material involving children) of the IT Act.
In July, 2024 the petitioner applied for 42 days of parole for agricultural work. However, his request was rejected on the grounds (i) the victim's mother objected, fearing threats, and (ii) a criminal case was registered against him during his previous parole.
The High Court reiterated that in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 the Supreme Court held 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”.
Further, the court noted that local authorities and villagers, including the Panchayat Pradhan and Lambardar, supported the petitioner's parole request, and did not raise any objections.
Thus, the court quashed the rejection order and directed that the petitioner be released on parole for 42 days.
Case Name: Sachin Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No.: CWP No. 10750 of 2025
Date of Decision: 12.09.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit K. Sehgal, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General.