Dinesh Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Virender Singh, J

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-Dinesh Sharma has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs, amongst others:

“i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quash and set aside Annexure P-1 dated 31.01.2025, in the interest of justice and fair play.

ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for the period of 42 days for agriculture work and to maintain family and social ties in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, vide judgment, dated 31st August, 2023, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and vide order of sentence, dated 2nd September, 2023, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹ 50,000. In default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three years.

By way of application, dated 30th September, 2024, the petitioner approached the respondents for availing the benefit of parole, as per the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking parole for 42 days, for agricultural purposes.

According to the petitioner, his application for grant of parole has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide letter, dated 31st January, 2025 (Annexure P-1).

The action of the respondents, in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole, has been assailed before this Court, by way of the present writ petition, mainly on the ground that his legal right, as provided by the Act, has been violated, as, there is nothing material, on the record, to justify the said rejection.

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order (Annexure P-1), by virtue of which, the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, has been rejected.

When put to notice, the factual position, with regard to the conviction and sentence, has not been disputed by the respondents-State. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner has applied for grant of 42 days’ parole on 30th September, 2024, for agricultural work.

As per the stand taken by respondents-State, the request of the petitioner was forwarded to District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, for their recommendations. However, the District Magistrate, Khushinagar, has not recommended for grant of parole, as prayed for, by the petitioner.

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.

As per the custody certificate, the total sentence undergone by the petitioner is five years, two months and twenty one days. The petitioner has applied for 42 days’ parole, which was recommended to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Khushinagar, U.P., on the ground that in case, the petitioner is released on parole, he may again commit same offence.

The primary purpose of releasing the convict on parole has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Asfaq versus State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2017) 15 SCC 55. Relevant para17, of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:

“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 is able to maintain his family and social contact. This reason finds justification in one of the objectives behind sentence and punishment, namely, 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 of 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 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. They are ultimately aimed for the good of the society and, therefore, are in public interest.

(self emphasis supplied)

In light of the above decision, this Court would now proceed to consider the fact as to whether the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer, seeking his release on parole, is sustainable in the eyes of law.

The reason, which has been mentioned in the report, by the District Magistrate, is that the petitioner may again indulge in the same activities, if released on parole.

The reason, so assigned, for not recommending grant of parole to the petitioner, is not supported by any cogent or convincing evidence. Mere mentioning the apprehension with regard to the fact that the petitioner may again commit same offence, is too short to decline the relief, for which, the petitioner is, otherwise, entitled to.

Consequently,  rejection  order,  dated  31st January, 2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No. 2, is quashed and set aside. The prayer, so made in the application seeking parole, is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole, for a period of 42 days.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, in the following terms:

(i) Order, dated 31st January, 2025 (Annexure P-1), rejecting the request of the petitioner for parole, is quashed and set-aside;

(ii) 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 and Open Air, Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P.;

(iii) It is made clear that the petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai, District and Open Air, Correctional Home, Dharamshala, 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;

(iv) 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; and

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

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

Registry to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai, District and Open Air, Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P., for compliance.