Himachal Pradesh High Court
__________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 12 September, 2023
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 4537 of 2023
.
Decided on: 12th September, 2023
__________________________________________________________
Arjun
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
of
......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
rt
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Owais Khan Pathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Yash Wardhan Chauhan,
Sr. Additional Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following substantive relief:-
(i) "Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant parole to the petitioner/prisoner, in a time bound manner, in accordance with law.1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS -2-2. FACTS 2(i). Petitioner's case is that an FIR No. 59 of 2013, .
dated 04.06.2013, was registered against him and other co-accused namely, Som Bahadur and Lucky in Police Station Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 376-D, 392 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner of faced trial and as per the judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, he was rt convicted and sentenced under Section 376/34 IPC for rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Further the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- for commission of offence under Section 392/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2(ii). The conviction and sentence was assailed before this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 83 of 2014 titled as Arjun alias Joun and others vs. State of H.P. which was ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS -3- dismissed by this Court on 20.07.2015. Thereafter the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 36295 .
of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits vide judgement dated 12.10.2018.
2(iii). It is the case of the petitioner that he has of undergone substantive sentence of nine years and eleven months and twenty-four days [as on 22.05.2023] and is rt currently lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. His case is that he applied for parole earlier in the year 2021 and then in the year 2022 but these requests were turned down by the competent authority on 23.05.2022, Annexure P-3. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking parole to meet his wife, daughters and aged father.
3. STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN INSTRUCTIONS-
REPLY 3(i). This Court issued notices to the respondent on 07.08.2023 directing them to file reply/instructions within three weeks. The case was listed on 28.08.2023 when the learned Senior Additional Advocate General has furnished ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS -4- Instructions dated 26.08.2023 which are taken on record, revealing that the parole request of the petitioner was turned .
down six times in the past due to non-recommendation of his case by the competent authority as the petitioner is a permanent resident of Nepal and there is every apprehension that if the petitioner is released on parole of he may jump the same and abscond to Nepal. It is further averred that this Court has disallowed his request for rt parole in CWP No. 449 of 2020, which was decided on 27.02.2020, Annexure C to the instructions referred to above.
In this background, request was made to dismiss the instant writ petition. However, in the interests of justice and keeping in view the object of parole, we deem it fit and proper to examine the rejection orders dated 23.05.2022, Annexure P-
3 (supra).
4. We have heard Mr. Owais Khan Pathan, Learned Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Rattan, Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Yash Wardhan Chauhan, Learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State and have gone through the records.
::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS -5-5. LEGAL POSITION:
5(i). At the outset, it would be relevant to take note, .
of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asfaq Versus State of Rajasthan and others, (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 55. The Apex Court has enunciated the object of granting parole to a convict. It has been emphasized that parole of is granted with an objective of reformation of the convicts. The convicts have a right to breathe fresh air albeit for short rt periods. The main purpose of parole is to provide humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails so that such convicts can prepare not only to solve their personal and family problems but also to maintain their links with society and such gestures by the State go a long way for redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners, which are good for the society and are in public interest. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced here-in-below:-
"11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough. A parole can be defined as conditional release of prisoners i.e. an early release of a prisoner, conditional on good behaviour and regular reporting 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 before the ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS -6- expiration of his term. Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition that parolee regularly reports to a supervising .
officer for a specified period. Such a release of the prisoner on parole can also be temporarily on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it is to be treated as mere suspension of the sentence for time being, keeping the quantum of sentence intact. Release on parole is designed of to afford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified exigencies. Such paroles are normally rt granted in certain situations some of which may be as follows:
(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
(iv) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause;
(v) parole can be granted only after a portion of sentence is already served;
(vi) if conditions of parole are not abided by the parolee he may be returned to serve his ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS -7- 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 health of convict himself.
xxx... xxx.... xxx...
15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the period of sentence or for 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 of considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family rt 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, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for good of societies must receive due weightage while they are undergoing sentence of imprisonment.
xxx... xxx.... xxx...
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 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS -8- 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 of parole, in order to afford opportunities to such convicts not only to solve their personal and rt 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 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS -9- 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 of parole can help prepare offenders for success.
19. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in rt 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 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 10 -
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 of for grant of furlough or parole. Obviously, society must isolate those who show patterns rt 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 proved their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 11 -
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 of cruelty to the society. Naturally enough, the authorities would be anxious to ensure that the convict who is released on furlough does rt 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 categorised as a hardened criminal. In his case consideration ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 12 -
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 of for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of offence for rt 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 good conduct, habitual offender or while judging whether he could be considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity 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 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 13 -
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. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 488, of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248, and Charles Sobraj v. rt 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 criminal is hardcore who is beyond correctional therapy. If the correctional ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 14 -
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."
.
(underlining ours) 5(ii). So far as respondents are concerned, the State Legislature had enacted "The Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968", which provides for of temporary release of the prisoners on certain conditions.
Section 3 and Section 6 of the Act, read as under:-
"3.
rt Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds.-
(1) The Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) any prisoner if the Government is satisfied that,-
(a) a member of the prisoner's family has died or is seriously ill; or
(b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or
(c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner's family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; or ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 15 -
(d) it is desirable so to do for any other sufficient cause.
(2). The period for which a prisoner may be .
released shall be determined by the Government so as not to exceed,-
(a) Where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), two weeks;
(b) where the prisoner is to be released on of the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks;
rt and
(c) where the prisoner is to be released on
the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-
section (1), six weeks.
(3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.
(4) The Government may, by notification, authorise any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein."
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 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 16 -
that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order."
.
5(iii). In exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the Act, respondents-State have framed "The Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969" (for short 'Rules'). The relevant portion of Rule 3 reads as under:-
of "3. Procedure for temporary release. -
(1) A prisoner desirous of seeking temporary rt release under section 3 or section 4 of the Act shall make an application in Form 'A-1' , Form 'A-2', as the case may be, to the Superintendent of Jail. Such an application may also be made by an adult member of the prisoners' family.
(2) The Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application of a prisoner within 24 hours of its receipt along with his report to the District Magistrate of the district to which the convict belongs. The District Magistrate before making any recommendations shall, with the consultation of the Superintendent of Police, verify the facts and grounds on which temporary release has been requested and shall also give their opinion whether the temporary release on parole/furlough is opposed on ground of prisoner's presence being dangerous to the security of State or ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 17 -
prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. The District Magistrate shall complete the process of consultation with the .
Superintendent of Police and forward his recommendations within one week to the Inspector General of Prisons (Releasing Authority) together with report of Superintendent Jail, who shall decide the parole/furlough case ordinarily within a of period of three days from the date of receipt of the recommendations of the District Magistrate.
rt In the event of the serious illness of close relation i.e. father, mother, brother, sister, spouse or child of the prisoner, the application should be processed more expeditiously. However in the event of death of the close relation i.e. father, mother, brother, sister, spouse or child of the prisoner, the Superintendent of the Jail shall also be the competent authority to release a prisoner on parole for a period not exceeding fifteen days. The Superintendent of Jail should release a prisoner on parole immediately on receipt of a death certificate, provided he satisfies himself independently within reasonable time about the genuineness of the certificate. For satisfying himself he will approach the concerned Police Station by wireless and verify about the truth of the death and the ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 18 -
exact relation of the prisoner with the deceased in order to ascertain the nearness of the relationship.
.
The Superintendent of Jail shall also take into consideration the prisoner's past criminal history and behaviour in the prison since admission as recorded in his case file and the likelihood of his not abusing the concession of parole, if granted.
of The Superintendent of Jail shall without fail submit the case file of the prisoner to whom rt parole is thus granted, to the Inspector General of Prisons enabling him to ensure that the Superintendent has used proper discretion in effecting the release."
[underlining ours] 5(iv). A perusal of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and Rule 3 of the Rules aforesaid stipulate that a convict (prisoner) can seek temporary release for meeting his family members-
relations and/or for carrying out any other agricultural operation, or on any other sufficient cause, besides other grounds, as mentioned therein. Rule 3 provides for the procedure as to the manner in which the application for parole is to be processed, examined and decided by the competent authorities. Section 6 of the Act bars the release ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 19 -
of the prisoners, in specified eventualities, in case the release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance .
of public order.
6. ANALYSIS 6(i). As per the mandate of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and of Rule 3, the District Magistrate concerned was legally bound to verify the facts; to ascertain the genuineness of the grounds on which parole was requested and then to form an opinion based rt on an impartial and independent application of mind in the context of the statute/Rules and the object of parole as mandated by law. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.05.2022, Annexure P-3, reveals that the request has been turned down due to non recommendation of his case by the District Magistrate, who has mechanically acted upon the report submitted of the Superintendent of Police and the non-
recommendation of the case of the petitioner by the District Magistrate is not in conformity with the principles of fairness and thus the rejection order is vitiated by non-application of mind is arbitrary and therefore, unsustainable in law.
6(ii). The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in CWP No.3516 of 2021, titled as Virender Kumar@Bindu Versus ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 20 -
State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided, on 23.07.2021, and Para 5, strengthens, the claim of the petitioner .
for grant of parole. Para 5 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"5. In the instant case, the documents placed on record make it manifestly clear that the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder has though been followed by the respondents, but only mechanically. The Additional District Magistrate of has not expressed his objective satisfaction in not recommending release of the petitioner. He has only expressed that victim's father and the rt local police has objected for petitioner's release on parole. The District Magistrate's report should be comprehensive and not mechanical reproduction of the police report and the statements of victim's family members. The District Magistrate is required to apply his impartial and independent mind as to whether the petitioner can be recommended for temporary release or not. The satisfaction has to be in terms of Section 6 of the Act. This aspect is missing in the case. The objection raised by the father of the victim may have its own merit and cannot be brushed aside, but at the same time, this objection cannot be accepted as a sole ground for denying parole to the petitioner. The objection has to be considered viz-a-viz provisions of Sections 3 and 6 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. If the objection of the father of the petitioner is to be accepted without looking into the provisions of the Act and the Rules, then probably the petitioner will never be able to get the parole.
(underlining ours) ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 21 -
6(iii) One more aspect needs to be taken note that Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners .
(Temporary Release) Act, 1968, stipulates that the request for temporary release-parole can only be denied if the release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. In the present case, the respondents have of not placed on record any cogent and convincing material justifying that the temporary release of the petitioner on parole would infringe the mandate of Section 6 of the Act, as rt mentioned above. Thus once the case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the exceptional categories therefore, the inaction of respondents and the impugned order denying parole to the petitioner does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is set-aside.
6(iv). Notably as per the Custody/Jail Certificate dated 29.05.2023 Annexure-P-5, the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner has been found to be satisfactory. In these circumstances, the denial of parole indefinitely when, nothing adverse exists will frustrate and defeat the very object of granting parole, as carved out by the enactment(s) and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Asfaq (supra). In view of this, the inaction of the respondents and ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 22 -
the impugned order is not tenable in law.
6(v). A perusal of the Instruction dated 26.08.2023 .
furnished by the respondents reveal that the claim of the petitioner for parole was not recommended in view of the report that the convict is a permanent resident of Nepal and there is no permanent address of the said convict in of State and there is an apprehension that if the convict is released on parole he may jump the parole and abscond to the Nepal.
rt In addition to this, the respondents have relied upon Annexure-C to these instructions i.e. an order passed by this Court in CWP No. 449 of 2020 on 27.02.2020 whereby the decision of the respondents in denying the parole to the petitioner was upheld in view of the fact that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Nepal and has no residential house in the locality or within the jurisdiction of District Magistrate concerned nor his parents and family members are residing within the State of Himachal Pradesh. In total contrast to the earlier story the petitioner has stated in para 10 of the present writ petition as under:-
"10. It is most respectfully submitted here is that petitioner/prisoner has born and brought up ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 23 -
at Manali, Himachal Pradesh and having a wife, minor daughters and father who has attained the age of senior citizen and earning .
his livelihood in Himachal Pradesh and petitioner/prisoner is also having kith and kin who lives in Himachal Pradesh."
In view of the averments made in Para 10 of of the present writ petition, which are supported by an affidavit, to the effect that kith and kin i.e. wife, minor rt daughter and father of the petitioner live in Himachal Pradesh, we consider it appropriate that the request of the petitioner needs to be re-examined, without being swayed away by the earlier rejection orders.
6(vi). It goes without saying that the apprehension, if any, of the respondents, can be safeguarded by imposing stringent/strict conditions before releasing the petitioner on parole. The case was listed on 28.08.2023 and keeping in view the instructions dated 26.08.2023 furnished by the respondents, we permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions to enable him to ensure the presence of the person(s) in Court, who shall stand as surety for the petitioner. Today (on 12.09.2023), the learned counsel for ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 24 -
the petitioner has produced two sureties, namely, Rati Ram, aged 62 years, resident of village Dadahu, District Sirmour .
and Kartar Singh, aged 47 years, resident of village Bouri, Tehsil Sarhan, District Sirmour in the Court, who were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner and were made aware of the consequencies, if any. In view of of the averments made in Para 10 of the writ petition (supra) that the petitioner wants parole to meet his kith and kin who reside in Himachal Pradesh therefore, keeping in view the rt facts in entirety, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner needs to be considered afresh for grant of parole for a period of 15 days, subject to the condition, that the petitioner during the parole period shall not leave the State of Himachal Pradesh. In case, he intends to go outside the State of Himachal Pradesh in any exigency then he shall inform about his whereabouts; his Cell Number and address where he intends to visit to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. and also to the SHO of the visiting place, if any. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner involves himself directly or indirectly, in any of the offences in law; then, such involvement or attempt shall entail cancellation of parole automatically.
::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS- 25 -
During parole the petitioner shall not cause any inducement or threat to any person and on expiry of parole period the .
petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, forthwith. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, herein, respondents are at liberty to impose any other just and of reasonable condition(s) as deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.
7. rt CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:
7(i). In view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed, with the following directions:-
(i) The order dated 23.05.2022, Annexure P-3 rejecting the request of petitioner for parole is quashed and set-aside.
(ii) Respondents are directed to reconsider the case and to extend concession of parole to the petitioner for a period of 15 days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, in the like amount each; namely, Rati Ram and Kartar Singh as detailed in Para 6(vi) supra; who are present in Court to the satisfaction of Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS
- 26 -
Himachal Pradesh.
(iii) While issuing parole order of the petitioner .
the respondents shall insert the conditions as mentioned in Para 6(vi) supra.
(iv) In peculiar facts and circumstances, herein, the respondents are at liberty to impose any other just and reasonable condition(s), of in addition to the conditions mentioned in Paras 7(ii) & (iii), supra, if deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.
8. rt The instant writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 12, 2023 (TM) ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2023 20:33:25 :::CIS