Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On : 04.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 7 July, 2025

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

1 2025:HHC:21516

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                 CWP No.               : 9080 of 2025





                                                 Reserved on :               04.07.2025
                                                 Decided on            :     07.07.2025





    Lekh Raj @ Sonu                                                        ...Petitioner

                                              Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

Coram r to ...Respondents

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Sawant, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional

Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Lekh Raj @ Sonu 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:

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2 2025:HHC:21516

"(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quash and set aside the Annexure P-2, dated 23.04.2025, 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 28 days, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has

been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Una,

District Una, for the offences, punishable under Section

376, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and

has been sentenced to undergo 25 years rigorous

imprisonment.

3. According to the petitioner, he has already

undergone a total substantive sentence period of four years

two months.

4. The petitioner applied for grant of parole for a

period of 28 days, by way of application, dated 1st January,

2025 (Annexure P-1) in order to meet his family and to

maintain social ties.

3 2025:HHC:21516

5. According to the petitioner, his application has

been rejected by respondent No. 2, on 23rd April, 2025, vide

Annexure P-2, without assigning any justifiable reason.

6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to quash and set aside the order (Annexure P-

2), by virtue of which, the request of the petitioner for

releasing him on parole, has been rejected. A prayer has

also been made to allow his request for parole.

7. When put to notice, the factual position, with

regard to conviction and sentence imposed upon the

petitioner, has not been disputed by the respondents.

8. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner

had applied for grant of 28 days' parole, on 1st January,

2025, to meet his family.

9. According to the respondents, the request of the

petitioner was duly forwarded to the District Authorities,

i.e. District Magistrate, Una, and Superintendent of Police,

Una, however, District Magistrate, Una, has not

recommended the prayer of the petitioner, on the basis of

the objection raised by the complainant to the release of

4 2025:HHC:21516

the petitioner on parole. The other allegations have also

been controverted by the respondents.

10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to dismiss the writ petition.

11. As per the custody certificate, annexed with the

reply, the substantive sentence undergone by the petitioner

is four years, three months and one day. The petitioner

has applied for 28 days' parole, which was recommended

to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Una, vide letter,

dated 07th February, 2025.

12. 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 paras-17

to 24, of the judgment, are 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,

5 2025:HHC:21516

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.

18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Main purpose of such provisions is to afford to 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 re-entry

into society. Those who leave prison without strong networks of support, without employment prospects, without a 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 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 interest has also to be kept in mind while deciding as to whether in a

6 2025:HHC:21516

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 threat to the law and order of the 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 great number of crimes are committed by the offenders who have been put back in 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 tendency to reform himself to become a good citizen.

20. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for 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 aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Thus, parole program 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 the citizens in regard to their security in the matters of life and liberty. It is for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to the society to render it immune from those who are prone to criminal tendencies and have

7 2025:HHC:21516

proved their 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 the

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 the 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 serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal.

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 categorized as a hardened criminal. In his case consideration

should be as to whether he is showing the signs to 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 the society. 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. We may hasten to put a rider here, viz. in those cases

8 2025:HHC:21516

where a person has been convicted for committing a serious office, the competent authority, while examining such cases, can be well advised to have stricter standards in

mind while judging their cases on the

parameters of god 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 worth of the individuals can have the quality

of its belief judged, at least in part, by the quality of its prisons and services and recourse made available to the prisoners. Being in a civilized society organized with law and a system as such, it is essential to ensure

for every citizen 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 (II) v. State (UT of Delhi) (1980) 3

SCC 488 , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Charles Sobraj v.

Superintendent Central Jai, Tihar, New Delhi, (1978) 4 SCC 104.

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 the 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 "recidivism" reflects the fact that the correctional therapy has not brought in the mind of the criminal. It also shows that

9 2025:HHC:21516

criminal is hardcore who is beyond correctional therapy. If the correctional therapy has not made in itself, in a particular case, such a case can be rejected on the aforesaid

ground i.e. on its merits."

(self emphasis supplied)

13. 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

14. to parole, is sustainable in the eyes of law.

Alongwith the reply, the certificate issued by

Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kuriala, Development Block

Tehsil and District Una, has been annexed, wherein, the

Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat has issued a certificate,

recommending that the Gram Panchayat and the villagers

have no objection in case, the benefit of parole, as claimed

by the petitioner, is granted to him.

15. The ground, upon which, the prayer of the

petitioner has been declined by the respondents, is the

recommendation made by the District Magistrate, Una. The

said recommendation has been made on the ground that

the complainant has raised objection on the release of the

petitioner.

2025:HHC:21516

16. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner

is resident of Village and Post Office Kuriala, Tehsil and

District Una, H.P., whereas, the victim is resident of Village

and Post Office Surjehara, Tehsil and District Una, H.P.

The Gram Panchayat, under which the village of the

petitioner falls, has also made recommendation in his

favour.

17. So far as the objections, which have r been

raised by the complainant, in this case, are concerned,

reasonable/stringent conditions can be imposed, in case,

the relief, as claimed, in the writ petition, is granted 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.

18. In such situation, in the considered opinion of

this Court, rejection order, dated 23rd April, 2025

(Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.2, is not

sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, the same is

quashed and set aside. The prayer, so made in the

2025:HHC:21516 application (Annexure P-1) is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be released on parole, for a period of 28 days.

19. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, in

the following terms:

(i) Order, dated 23rd April, 2025 (Annexure P-

2), 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 28 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, District Jail, Una,

District Una, H.P.;

(iii) 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;

(iv) It is made clear that the petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail,

District Jail, Una, District Una, 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;

(v) 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;