Reserved On : 07.01.2026 vs State Of H.P. And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 252 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On : 07.01.2026 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 8 January, 2026

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh

                                               1                   2026:HHC:2315

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                             CWP No.               :21143 of 2025
                                             Reserved on :               07.01.2026
                                             Decided on            :     08.01.2026


Anshul @ Anshu                                                         ...Petitioner

                                          Versus

State of H.P. and others                                               ...Respondents


Coram

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

For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Singh Verma, Legal Aid Counsel.

For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge.

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Anshul @ Anshu 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 2026:HHC:2315

"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 10.09.2025 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 to meet with family and to maintain family and social ties, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, he has been

convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kangra at

Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, for the offence,

punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has

been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of twenty years and to pay a fine of ₹ 10,000/-. In

default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. According to the petitioner, he, as well as, his

family members want to meet each other, hence, he

applied for grant of parole for a period of 28 days, by way of

application, dated 28th June, 2025 (Annexure P-1).

4. The said application of the petitioner is stated to

have been rejected by the respondents, on 10th September, 3 2026:HHC:2315

2025, vide Annexure P-2, without assigning any justifiable

reason.

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

been made to quash and set aside the order, 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.

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

regard to conviction and sentence imposed upon the

petitioner, has not been disputed by the respondents.

7. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner

had applied for grant of 28 days' parole, on 28th June,

2025, to meet his family.

8. According to the respondents, the request of the

petitioner was duly forwarded to the District Authorities,

i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police,

Kangra at Dharamshala. In pursuance of the same,

District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, has not

recommended the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground

that the victim and her brother have raised objections, for

the release of the petitioner on parole, as, he may cause 4 2026:HHC:2315

them physical and mental harm. An apprehension has

also been made that the petitioner may against commit

similar offence, in case, he is ordered to be released on

parole.

9. 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 (Annexure R-3/2),

the substantive sentence undergone by the petitioner, as

on 5th January, 2026, is one year, eight months and twenty

days. The petitioner has applied for 28 days' parole, which

was recommended to be rejected by the District Magistrate,

Kangra at Dharamshala, vide letter, dated 22nd August,

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:

5 2026:HHC:2315

"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.

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 6 2026:HHC:2315

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 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.

7 2026:HHC:2315

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 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 8 2026:HHC:2315

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 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 9 2026:HHC:2315

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 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 facts as to whether the relief of

parole, as sought in the petition, on the ground to meet the

family members, can be granted to the petitioner and that

the rejection of the petitioner's prayer, seeking his release

on parole, is sustainable in the eyes of law.

14. Considering the case of the petitioner, in view of

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asfaq's case

(supra), this Court is of the view that the term 'sufficient

cause' is to be interpreted, in view of the beneficial nature

of the statutory provisions, in the Act, which are aimed at

reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoners, as well as, 10 2026:HHC:2315

enabling the petitioner to socialize with his family

members. As such, the same can be said to be a 'sufficient

cause'.

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

petitioner has been declined by the respondents, is the

recommendation made by the District Magistrate, Kangra

at Dharamshala. The said recommendation has been

made on the ground that the victim and her brother have

raised objections, for the release of the petitioner on parole,

and have expressed apprehensions regarding their life and

liberty, and that in case, the petitioner is released on

parole, he may again indulge in similar activities.

16. Alongwith the reply, the certificate issued by the

Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Jaangal, Development Block,

Lambagaon, District Kangra, has been annexed, wherein,

the Pradhan has recommended that the Gram Panchayat

and has no objection, in case, the benefit of parole, as

claimed by the petitioner, is granted to him.

17. The statements of Prem Chand, Ward Member,

Ward No. 1, Beed Jaangal and one Jayant Kumar, a local

resident of the area, have also been placed on record, 11 2026:HHC:2315

wherein they have given no objection, in case, the relief of

parole is granted to the petitioner.

18. 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.

Moreover, the authorities must keep in mind the object of

the Act, under which, the relief has been sought for. The

relief, which has been claimed, should be rejected on

reasonable grounds, not, on the basis of the unfounded

apprehensions.

19. In the present case, when, the Pradhan and

Ward Member of the Panchayat have recommended the

grant of relief, for which, the application has been made,

read with the fact that the victim and the petitioner are

residents of different villages, then, the apprehensions

expressed by the victim and her brother, are too short to

decline the relief, for which, the petitioner is otherwise

entitled to, as, for those apprehensions,

reasonable/stringent conditions can be imposed, in case,

the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, is granted to the 12 2026:HHC:2315

petitioner, by directing the petitioner, even not to visit the

village, where the victim resides.

20. In such situation, in the considered opinion of

this Court, rejection order, dated 10th September, 2025

(Annexure P-2), is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As

such, the same is quashed and set aside. The prayer, so

made in the application (Annexure P-1) is allowed and the

petitioner is ordered to be released on parole, for a period

of 28 days.

21. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, in

the following terms:

(i) Order, dated 10th September, 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, Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open Air, Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.;

(iii) The petitioner shall also undertake that he shall not cause any threat or inducement to the victim or her, nor, try to contact them, in any manner;

(iv) The petitioner shall also undertake that he shall not visit the village, where the victim resides.

13 2026:HHC:2315

(v) It is made clear that the petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District and 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;

(vi) 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;

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

22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

23. Registry to communicate this order to the

Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open

Air, Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra,

H.P., for compliance.

                                            ( Virender Singh )
                                                   Judge
January 08, 2026
      ( rajni )





                       RAJNI               Date: 2026.01.08