Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Ram Pal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 20 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2591 of 2026
Date of Decision: 20.03.2026
_____________________________________________________________________
.
Sh. Ram Pal .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
of
For the Petitioner: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
rt Advocates General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Petitioner herein, who at present is lodged in District Jail
Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, for his having been
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment
for five years under Section 366-A of Indian Penal Code and rigorous
imprisonment for 20 years under Section 4 of POCSO Act read with
Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, in terms of judgment dated
19.04.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge
(Fast Track), Special Court (POCSO),Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has
approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for
the following main reliefs:-
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
2
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
20.01.2026;
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing release of the petitioner on
parole for the permissible period under the Rules, on such terms and
.
conditions as deemed fit.”
2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,
respondent-State has filed reply. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced
on record by the respective parties clearly reveals that sole ground
of
taken by the respondents for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for
grant of parole is that family of the victim-prosecutrix is opposed to
rt
the same and there is an apprehension that, in the event the petitioner
is granted the benefit of parole, he may cause harm to the victim-
prosecutrix as well as her family. Besides above, local Panchayat has
also raised a similar ground as has been raised by the family of the
victim-prosecutrix, as noted hereinabove. Since it is not in dispute
that jail authorities have recommended the case of the petitioner for
grant of parole and having taken note of the good conduct of the
petitioner during his stay in jail for four years and two months, the
sole question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand, is
that “whether request for grant of parole can be denied on account of
objection raised by the aggrieved party and the further apprehension
that the same may also create law and order problem.
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
3
3. Issue is no more res integra, rather stands decided by the
Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.414 of 2020, titled as Mrs.
Kavita Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and others along with connected
.
matters, decided on 25.06.2020, which reads as under:
“4. Now the moot question is whether the request for grant of parole
cannot be accepted only on account of objection by the aggrieved party
and on further apprehension that the same may also create law and
order problem.
of
5. The issue is no longer res integra insofar as this Court is concerned
and was recently considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CMP No. 3970 of 2020 in CWP No. 2931 of 2019, titled ‘Mrs. Har
rt
Dei versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others‘, decided on
03.06.2020, wherein like the present case, the request for grant of
parole was being opposed by the respondents only on the ground that
the offence committed was heinous one and in case the parole is
granted, the same is likely to create law and order problem and lastly
the grant of parole was also rejected as the family of the victim had
objected for the same.
6. It was in this background that this Court held as under:
2. Section 6 of the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary
Release) Act, 1968, reads as follows:
“6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain
cases .- Notwithstanding anything contained in sections
3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released
under this Act, if, on the report of the District Magistrate,
the Government or an officer authorised by it in this
behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger
the security of the State or the maintenance of public
order.”
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
4
3. Needless to say that as per Section 6, the release must not
endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public
order. However, the State did not place on record any such
statement from the family of the victim. A mere report, without
.
referring to the statements of those members of the victim’s
family who have objection to the release on parole, such bald
objection cannot be a reason to deny parole. Even otherwise, the
prisoner was convicted under Section 304- II of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to a limited period of imprisonment which
means that after completion of the awarded terms of
of
imprisonment, he shall have to be released from prison. In such
an eventuality, the convict would be at liberty to travel to his
home. Resultantly, the objection of the victim’s family must be
rt considered keeping in view the holistic view of the matter and
not on flimsy grounds.
4. In the present report filed by the District Magistrate, dated
Mar 2, 2020, there is no supportive material to reject the claim.
Consequently, this Court overrules the rejection of parole by the
District Magistrate, Kullu, which was further noticed by the
Director General, Prisons & Correctional Services, HP, in his
order dated May 28, 2020, and directs the concerned authority
to release the convict on parole for a period of fourteen days,
after taking requisite personal and surety bonds. The needful be
done without waste of time. Ordered accordingly.”
7. In the present case also, there is no material to support the claim
drawn by the District Magistrate to repeatedly reject the request for
grant of parole. Consequently, this Court is left with no other option, but
to quash the letter dated 12.12.2018 (Annexure P-3) and letter dated
03.06.2019 (Annexure P-5). Ordered accordingly.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents
are directed to release the convict (husband of the petitioner) on parole
for a period of 14 days after taking requisite personal and surety
bonds.
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
5
4. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55:
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 390: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1092, wherein it has
.
been categorically held that parole grants an opportunity to the
convict to maintain his links with society and convicts must be
allowed to breathe fresh air for at least some time. If they maintain
good conduct during incarceration and show a tendency to reform
of
themselves, parole should not be denied to them. Relevant paras of the
afore judgment read as under:-
rt
“10. In the first instance, it would be necessary to understand the
meaning and purpose of the grant of parole. It would be betterunderstood when considered in contrast with furlough. These terms
have been legally defined and judicially explained by the courts from
time to time.
11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough. A parole
can be defined as the conditional release of prisoners, i.e. an early
release of a prisoner, conditional on good behaviour and regularreporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It can also be defined
as a form of conditional pardon by which the convict is released beforethe expiration of his term. Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour
on the condition that the parolee regularly reports to a supervisingofficer 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 the sentence intact. Release on parole is
designed to afford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified
exigencies. Such paroles are normally granted in certain situations,
some of which may be as follows:
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
6
(i) a member of the prisoner’s family has died or is seriously ill,
or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or
(ii) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter,
grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, sister’s son or.
daughter is to be celebrated; or
(iii) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for
ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other
agricultural operation of his land or his father’s undivided land
actually in possession of the prisoner; or
of
(iv) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause;
(v) parole can be granted only after a portion of the sentence is
already served;
rt (vi) if conditions of parole are not abided by, the parolee may be
returned to serve his sentence in prison; such conditions may
be such as those of committing a new offence, and (vii) parole
may also be granted on the basis of aspects related to the
health of the convict himself.
12. Many State Governments have formulated guidelines on parole in
order to bring out objectivity in the decision making and to decide as to
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:
(i) death of a family member;
(ii) marriage of a family member;
(iii) serious illness of a family member; or
(iv) any other emergent circumstances.
13. As far as “regular parole” is concerned, it may be given in the
following cases:
(i) serious illness of a family member;
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
7
(ii) critical conditions in the family on account of the accident or
death of a family member; (iii) marriage of any member of the
family of the convict; (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; (v) serious damage to the life or property of the
family of the convict, including damage caused by natural
calamities; (vi) to maintain family and social ties; (vii) to pursue
the filing of a special leave petition before this Court against a
judgment delivered by the High Court convicting or upholding
the conviction, as the case may be.
of
14. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief release from prison. It is
conditional and is given in case of long-term 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
rt
conduct remission.
15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the period of
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 societies
must receive due weightage while they are undergoing a sentence of
imprisonment.
16. This Court, through various pronouncements, has laid down the
differences between parole and furlough, a few of which are as under:
(i) Both parole and furlough are conditional releases.
(ii) Parole can be granted in case of short-term imprisonment,
whereas furlough it is granted in case of long-term
imprisonment.
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
8
(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.
of
(viii) Since furlough is not granted for any particular reason, it
can be denied in the interest of society.
rt (See State of Maharashtra v. Suresh
Darvakar [State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang
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 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 the society.
Another objective which this theory underlines is that even such
convicts have the right to breathe fresh air, albeit for (sic short periods.
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
9
These gestures on the part of the State, along with other measures, go
a long way toward the redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners.
They are ultimately aimed for 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 reentry into society. Those who
of
leave prison without strong networks of support, without employment
prospects, without 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
rt
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 has 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. 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 offenders who have been put back on the
street after conviction. Therefore, while deciding as to 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.
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
10
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
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
rt
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 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 as to 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
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
11
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 parole out rightly.
.
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
of
their cases on the parameters of good conduct, habitual offender or
while judging whether he could be considered highly dangerous or
prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility, etc.
23. There can be no cavil in saying that a society that believes in the
rt
worth of 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 has 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
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
12
“recidivism”, reflects the fact that 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.
25. We are not oblivious of the fact that there may be hardcore
criminals who, by reason of their crime and the 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
commit those crimes again. There may be pressure of being ostracised
of
from delinquent groups, which may lead them to commit the crime
again. Persistence in criminal behaviour may also be due to personality
traits, most frequently due to pathological traits of personality, such as
rt
mental defectiveness, emotional instability, mental
egocentrism and psychosis. In regard to relapse or recidivism, Frank
conflicts,
Exner, a noted criminologist and sociologist, points out that the chances
of repeating increase with the number of previous arrests and the
interval between the last and the next offence becomes shortened as
the number of previous crimes progresses [ 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 offenders 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:
(i) Hereditary weakness in the family life.
(ii) Increasing tempo of criminality.
(iii) Bad conditions in the parental home.
(iv) Bad school progress (especially in deportment and
industriousness).
(v) Failure to complete studies once begun.
(vi) Irregular work (work shyness).
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
13
(vii) Onset of criminality before 18 years of age.
(viii) More than four previous sentences.
(ix) Quick relapse of crime.
.
(x) Interlocal criminality (mobility).
(xi) Psychopathic personality (diagnosis of institutional doctor).
(xii) Alcoholism.
(xiii) Release from the institution before 36 years of age.
(xiv) Bad conduct in the institution.
of
(xv) Bad social and family relations during the period of release.
At the same time, as criminality is the expression of the “symptom” of a
certain disorder in the offenders, they can be easily reformed if they
rt
are rightly diagnosed and the correct treatment is administered to
them.”
8. This Court also held in Harbhajan Singh v. State of H.P., 2019
SCC OnLine HP 3599, that the parole can be denied if the release of
the convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or the
maintenance of public order. 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 – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
14
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 assessment in an objectivemanner, he shall do it in that manner only.
19. Further, the rejection by the Government or the officer
of
authorized 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.
rt
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 thecourt’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/pre-mature release or furlough is
not a right of detinue. However, the same 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 from jail for a short period
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
15
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 during
.
incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and
become good citizens.
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
of
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
rt
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 Courthas devised another humanizing strategy, viz. a
guarded parole release every year for at least a month,
punctuating the total prison term, for maintaining hisfamily 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 enlarged on
parole for two months. ‘Their lordships further::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
16added that “Article 21 of the Constitution in the
jurisdiction root for this legal liberalism.”
5. Though in the reply filed by the respondent-State, there is
.
no denial to the fact that petitioner’s conduct during incarceration was
satisfactory, however, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has been
rejected merely on the ground that family of the victim-prosecutrix as
well as Gram Panchayat of the concerned area, has objected to the
of
release of the petitioner on parole on the ground that petitioner is a
dangerous person and in the event of his being granted benefit of
rt
parole, he may cause harm to the family of the victim-prosecutrix.
6. However, this Court finds that no material has been
placed on record to substantiate the aforesaid objection raised at the
behest of the family of the victim-prosecutrix or to justify such
apprehension. Merely because the petitioner had committed a heinous
crime may not be sufficient to conclude that the petitioner is a
dangerous person and in the event of being granted the benefit of
parole, he would again commit a similar offence. Though this Court
cannot have any quarrel with the arguments advanced by Mr. Vishal
Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, that person, who is
likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public
order, cannot be granted parole, however, it is equally settled that a
threat to an individual does not constitute a threat to public order, as
::: Downloaded on – 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS
17
such, the parole could not have been rejected because of the objection
raised by the victim’s family.
7. Consequently, in view of the above, 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/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Superintendent Jail with an undertaking to maintain good
of
conduct during the period of parole and to surrender before the
Superintendent Jail after the expiry of the period of parole. The
rt
petitioner is directed not to contact the victim’s family. 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.
8. The Superintendent Jail is free to impose any other
suitable condition at the time of the release of the petitioner.
Present petition stands disposed of in afore terms along
with pending applications, if any.
March 20, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(sunil) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS