Objections Raised By Neighbours, Relatives Cannot Be Sole Ground For Refusing Convict's Parole: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently said that any objection raised by local inhabitants or relatives cannot be the sole determinative basis for refusing parole.Justice Ranjan Sharma said, "Any objection raised by local inhabitants / relative cannot be the sole determinative basis for refusing parole and such an objection raised by local inhabitants/relative cannot be given “pre- dominance and over-weightage” by totally brushing aside relevant considerations i.e. material(s)-inputs- reports-facts and when, nothing adverse regarding the conduct and behavior during custody and even during earlier release was borne out from the records and when, the State authorities have not produced any cogent and convincing material that release of petitioner was likely to be prejudicial to the security of state or maintenance of public order {under Section 6 of the Act} in the instant case."The development came while hearing the plea an NDPS convict, who was held guilty under Sections 21 & 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced, by the Special Judge, Mandi Division, for rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000.It was submitted that the mother of the petitioner is critical and she is hospitalized and under treatment in Civil Hospital, Panchkula, which is borne out from the treatment summary and photographs placed on records. It was averred that the petitioner has a brother who is deaf and dumb and a daughter and a wife and there is no other male member so as to take care of the mother and to extend facilities as may be required at this stage.Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted parole on two earlier occasions w.e.f. 29.8.2024 to 25.9.2024 and then again for 14 days w.e.f. 31.12.2024 to 22.1.2025 and after expiry of parole period, the petitioner surrendered before the concerned.After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and Rule 3 stipulates that a convict (prisoner) can seek temporary release for meeting his family members-relations and/or for carrying out any other agricultural operation, or on any other sufficient cause, besides other grounds, as mentioned therein.The Court noted further that, during the subsistence of earlier parole and due to the unstable health of mother, the petitioner made an application for extension of parole by Email on 15.1.2025 but the prayer was turned down.Justice Sharma highlighted that as per Para No.19.12 of Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021, "a convict becomes eligible for second parole “after completion of 6 months of actual imprisonment to be counted from the date of his last return from parole, by asserting it to have been issued in a casual manner and also by totally ignoring the mandate of law, which is illegal."The judge said that the stand of State Authorities based on the above, does not pass the test of judicial scrutiny for the reasons, that firstly, even on facts of instant case, State Authorities have granted parole to the petitioner twice i.e. for 28 days from 29.08.2024 to 29.05.2024 and was again granted parole for 14 days in terms of orders dated 31.12.2024 to 22.01.2025.The Court gave eleven reasons to reject the contention of the State authorities, including that "once the object and intent of parole- temporary releasing a convict/prisoner is to enable a convict to establish the social ties which in itself includes the efforts for taking care of his family including the ailing mother as in this case.It added that the the action of the State Authorities in denying the parole to the petitioner is uncalled for and that too when, the Counsel, on instructions of the petitioner through her wife states that the mother of the petitioner is still bed-ridden/hospitalized which is borne out from the photograph on record.Stating that, "Depriving a convict of the benefit of parole when, his conduct and behavior was good and nothing adverse was reported against petitioner so as to enable him to move towards reformation," the Court directed re- consider the case of the petitioner for parole in view of the extenuating circumstances as per the law.Mr. Atul Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Title: Prakash Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & orsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 02Click here to read/download the order

Objections Raised By Neighbours, Relatives Cannot Be Sole Ground For Refusing Convict's Parole: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Objections Raised By Neighbours, Relatives Cannot Be Sole Ground For Refusing Convict's Parole: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers