Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Virender Singh ordered the grant of 42 days’ parole to a convict, setting aside the State’s refusal. The Court observed that prisoners must be given opportunities to preserve family and social connections, and parole plays a vital role in enabling them to discharge personal and familial obligations. Invoking the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act and drawing on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Bench held that objections from the victim’s family and mere registration of an FIR during earlier parole could not justify denying temporary release.

The matter concerned a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of a parole application. The petitioner had been convicted by the Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, on 7 March 2020, under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 6 and 14(3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Sections 66-E and 67-B of the Information Technology Act. The conviction carried rigorous imprisonment and fines, including twenty years’ imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and life imprisonment under Section 14(3) of the same statute.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Issue of Sanction Under S.197 CrPC Can Be Raised at Any Stage of Trial | Corruption Charges Against Public Servant to Proceed

The petitioner, having served over five years of his sentence, applied on 3 July 2024 for 42 days’ parole for agricultural purposes. The application was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Kangra. The District Magistrate recommended rejection, citing objections from the victim’s mother, who raised concerns that the petitioner might harm the victim’s family if released. The rejection was also based on a prior incident during an earlier parole in January 2024, when the petitioner was booked under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The parole application was formally rejected by order dated 31 December 2024.

The petitioner contested the grounds of rejection, arguing that the subsequent FIR was false and could not preclude his release on parole. He further relied upon certificates and statements from the Gram Panchayat Pradhan, Lambardar, and other villagers, who had no objection to parole being granted.

The respondents did not dispute the conviction or the fact that the petitioner had sought parole for agricultural purposes. However, they relied upon the objection of the victim’s mother and the registration of the FIR to argue against parole.

Justice Virender Singh examined the statutory framework and judicial precedents on parole, particularly the judgment in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC 55. The court recorded: “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 is able to maintain his family and social contact.” The court further noted: “Another objective which this theory underlines is that even such convicts have right to breathe fresh air, albeit for periods. These gestures on the part of the State, along with other measures, go a long way for redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners.”

The judgment recorded that parole serves public interest by reducing the risk of re-offending: “Furloughs or parole can help prepare offenders for success.” At the same time, it acknowledged that public safety must be considered: “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 threat to the law and order of the society, should not be released on parole.”

The court cited: “Mere nature of the offence committed by him should not be a factor to deny the parole outrightly. Wherever a person convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of offence for which he was sentenced.”

In addressing the FIR registered during earlier parole, the court relied upon Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat (2024 INSC 806): “Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se, is not a ground to cancel the remission order. Every case of breach cannot invite cancellation of the order of remission.” Justice Virender Singh held that this principle applied equally to parole, and therefore the pending FIR could not be treated as conclusive.

The court observed: “So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the victim’s mother, are concerned, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, is granted to the petitioner.”

The court directed: “Order, dated 31st December, 2024, rejecting the request of the petitioner for parole, is quashed and set-aside.” It further held: “Respondents are directed to extend the concession of parole to the petitioner, for a period of 42 days, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/-, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District & Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.”

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court | Stocking Medicines Without Licence Amounts to ‘Offer for Sale’ Under Section 18(a) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Conviction Under Section 27(b)(ii) Upheld

“The petitioner shall also undertake that he shall not cause any threat or inducement to the family of the victim, nor, try to contact them, in any manner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District & Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., on expiry of parole period. In case, the petitioner breaches any of the conditions of parole order or creates any law and order problem, then, the respondents are free to cancel the parole and take action against the petitioner, in accordance with law.”

“In peculiar facts and circumstances, of the case, the respondents are at liberty to impose any other just and reasonable condition(s), in addition to the conditions mentioned hereinabove, if deemed fit and proper, to meet the ends of justice.”

“Violation of any of the above conditions shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of similar prayer, in future.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

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.

Case Title: Sachin Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:31339
Case Number: CWP No. 10750 of 2025
Bench: Justice Virender Singh