Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Ram Pal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 20 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2591 of 2026
Date of Decision: 20.03.2026
_____________________________________________________________________
.
Sh. Ram Pal .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
of
For the Petitioner: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
rt Advocates General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Petitioner herein, who at present is lodged in District Jail Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, for his having been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 366-A of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 20 years under Section 4 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, in terms of judgment dated 19.04.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Special Court (POCSO),Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main reliefs:-
::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 2"a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
20.01.2026;
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing release of the petitioner on parole for the permissible period under the Rules, on such terms and .
conditions as deemed fit."
2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties clearly reveals that sole ground of taken by the respondents for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole is that family of the victim-prosecutrix is opposed to rt the same and there is an apprehension that, in the event the petitioner is granted the benefit of parole, he may cause harm to the victim-
prosecutrix as well as her family. Besides above, local Panchayat has also raised a similar ground as has been raised by the family of the victim-prosecutrix, as noted hereinabove. Since it is not in dispute that jail authorities have recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of parole and having taken note of the good conduct of the petitioner during his stay in jail for four years and two months, the sole question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand, is that "whether request for grant of parole can be denied on account of objection raised by the aggrieved party and the further apprehension that the same may also create law and order problem.
::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 33. Issue is no more res integra, rather stands decided by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.414 of 2020, titled as Mrs. Kavita Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and others along with connected .
matters, decided on 25.06.2020, which reads as under:
"4. Now the moot question is whether the request for grant of parole cannot be accepted only on account of objection by the aggrieved party and on further apprehension that the same may also create law and order problem.
of
5. The issue is no longer res integra insofar as this Court is concerned and was recently considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMP No. 3970 of 2020 in CWP No. 2931 of 2019, titled 'Mrs. Har rt Dei versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others', decided on 03.06.2020, wherein like the present case, the request for grant of parole was being opposed by the respondents only on the ground that the offence committed was heinous one and in case the parole is granted, the same is likely to create law and order problem and lastly the grant of parole was also rejected as the family of the victim had objected for the same.
6. It was in this background that this Court held as under:
2. Section 6 of the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, reads as follows:
"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 that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order."::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 4
3. Needless to say that as per Section 6, the release must not endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. However, the State did not place on record any such statement from the family of the victim. A mere report, without .
referring to the statements of those members of the victim's family who have objection to the release on parole, such bald objection cannot be a reason to deny parole. Even otherwise, the prisoner was convicted under Section 304- II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a limited period of imprisonment which means that after completion of the awarded terms of of imprisonment, he shall have to be released from prison. In such an eventuality, the convict would be at liberty to travel to his home. Resultantly, the objection of the victim's family must be rt considered keeping in view the holistic view of the matter and not on flimsy grounds.
4. In the present report filed by the District Magistrate, dated Mar 2, 2020, there is no supportive material to reject the claim. Consequently, this Court overrules the rejection of parole by the District Magistrate, Kullu, which was further noticed by the Director General, Prisons & Correctional Services, HP, in his order dated May 28, 2020, and directs the concerned authority to release the convict on parole for a period of fourteen days, after taking requisite personal and surety bonds. The needful be done without waste of time. Ordered accordingly."
7. In the present case also, there is no material to support the claim drawn by the District Magistrate to repeatedly reject the request for grant of parole. Consequently, this Court is left with no other option, but to quash the letter dated 12.12.2018 (Annexure P-3) and letter dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P-5). Ordered accordingly.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the convict (husband of the petitioner) on parole for a period of 14 days after taking requisite personal and surety bonds.
::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 54. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55:
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 390: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1092, wherein it has .
been categorically held that parole grants an opportunity to the convict to maintain his links with society and convicts must be allowed to breathe fresh air for at least some time. If they maintain good conduct during incarceration and show a tendency to reform of themselves, parole should not be denied to them. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under:-
rt "10. In the first instance, it would be necessary to understand the meaning and purpose of the grant of parole. It would be better understood when considered in contrast with furlough. These terms have been legally defined and judicially explained by the courts from time to time.
11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough. A parole can be defined as the 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 expiration of his term. Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition that the parolee regularly reports to a supervising officer for a specified period. Such a release of the prisoner on parole can also be temporary on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it is to be treated as a mere suspension of the sentence for the time being, keeping the quantum of the sentence intact. Release on parole is designed to afford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified exigencies. Such paroles are normally granted in certain situations, some of which may be as follows:::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 6
(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 of
(iv) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause;
(v) parole can be granted only after a portion of the sentence is already served;
rt (vi) if conditions of parole are not abided by, the parolee may be returned to serve his 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 the health of the convict himself.
12. Many State Governments have formulated guidelines on parole in order to bring out objectivity in the decision making and to decide as to whether parole needs to be granted in a particular case or not. Such a decision in those cases is taken in accordance with the guidelines framed. Guidelines of some of the States stipulate two kinds of parole, namely, custody parole and regular parole. "Custody parole" is generally granted in emergent circumstances like:
(i) death of a family member;
(ii) marriage of a family member;
(iii) serious illness of a family member; or
(iv) any other emergent circumstances.
13. As far as "regular parole" is concerned, it may be given in the following cases:
(i) serious illness of a family member;::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 7
(ii) critical conditions in the family on account of the accident or death of a family member; (iii) marriage of any member of the family of the convict; (iv) delivery of a child by the wife of the convict if there is no other family member to take care of the .
spouse at home; (v) serious damage to the life or property of the family of the convict, including damage caused by natural calamities; (vi) to maintain family and social ties; (vii) to pursue the filing of a special leave petition before this Court against a judgment delivered by the High Court convicting or upholding the conviction, as the case may be.
of
14. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief release from prison. It is conditional and is given in case of long-term imprisonment. The period of sentence spent on furlough by the prisoners need not be undergone by him as is done in the case of parole. Furlough is granted as a good rt conduct remission.
15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the period of sentence or the 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 considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family 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, the redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for the good of societies must receive due weightage while they are undergoing a sentence of imprisonment.
16. This Court, through various pronouncements, has laid down the differences between parole and furlough, a few of which are as under:
(i) Both parole and furlough are conditional releases.
(ii) Parole can be granted in case of short-term imprisonment, whereas furlough it is granted in case of long-term imprisonment.::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 8
(iii) Duration of parole extends to one month, whereas in the case of furlough, it extends to fourteen days maximum.
(iv) Parole is granted by the Divisional Commissioner, and furlough is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.
.
(v) For parole, a specific reason is required, whereas furlough is meant for breaking the monotony of imprisonment.
(vi) The term of imprisonment is not included in the computation of the term of parole, whereas it is vice versa in furlough.
(vii) Parole can be granted a number of times, whereas there is a limitation in the case of furlough.
of
(viii) Since furlough is not granted for any particular reason, it can be denied in the interest of society.
rt (See State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Darvakar [State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Pandurang Darvakar, (2006) 4 SCC 776 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 411] and State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh [State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394: 2000 SCC (Cri) 645] .)
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 can maintain his family and social contact. This reason finds justification in one of the objectives behind sentence and punishment, namely, the 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 out 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 the right to breathe fresh air, albeit for (sic short periods.::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 9
These gestures on the part of the State, along with other measures, go a long way toward the redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners. They are ultimately aimed for the good of society and, therefore, are in the public interest.
.
18. The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. The main purpose of such provisions is to afford 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 reentry into society. Those who of leave prison without strong networks of support, without employment prospects, without 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 rt 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 interests 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 a threat to the law and order of 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 a great number of crimes are committed by offenders who have been put back on 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 a tendency to reform himself to become a good citizen.
::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 1020. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for the 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 they aspire to live as law-
abiding citizens. Thus, the parole programme 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 of the citizens in regard to their security in matters of life and liberty. It is for this reason that in introducing such reforms, the authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to society to render it immune from those who are prone to criminal tendencies and have proved their rt 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 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 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 a serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal. The 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 should be given as to whether he is showing the signs to ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 11 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 society. The mere nature of the offence committed by him should not be a factor to deny parole out rightly.
.
Wherever a person convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of the 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 offence, the competent authority, while examining such cases, can be well advised to have stricter standards in mind while judging of 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 tranquility, etc.
23. There can be no cavil in saying that a society that believes in the rt worth of individuals can have the quality of its belief judged, at least in part, by the quality of its prisons and services and the recourse made available to the prisoners. Being in a civilised society organised with law and a system as such, it is essential to ensure every citizen has 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 (2) v. State (UT of Delhi) [Sunil Batra (2) v. State (UT of Delhi), (1980) 3 SCC 488: 1980 SCC (Cri) 777], Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] and Charles Sobraj v. Supt., Central Jail [Charles Sobraj v. Supt., Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC 104: 1978 SCC (Cri) 542] .]
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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 12 "recidivism", reflects the fact that correctional therapy has not brought (sic any change in the mind of the criminal. It also shows that a criminal is hardcore, who is beyond correctional therapy. If the correctional therapy has not been made in itself, in a particular case, .
such a case can be rejected on the aforesaid ground, i.e. on its merits.
25. We are not oblivious of the fact that there may be hardcore criminals who, by reason of their crime and the methods of dealing with the crime, form associations, loyalties and attitudes which tend to persist. There may even be peer pressure when such convicts are out to commit those crimes again. There may be pressure of being ostracised of from delinquent groups, which may lead them to commit the crime again. Persistence in criminal behaviour may also be due to personality traits, most frequently due to pathological traits of personality, such as rt mental defectiveness, emotional instability, mental egocentrism and psychosis. In regard to relapse or recidivism, Frank conflicts, Exner, a noted criminologist and sociologist, points out that the chances of repeating increase with the number of previous arrests and the interval between the last and the next offence becomes shortened as the number of previous crimes progresses [ Frank Exner, Kriminologie, pp. 115-120]. The purpose of the criminological study is the prognosis of the improvable occasional offenders and that of the irredeemable habitual offenders and hardcore criminals. To differentiate the recidivists from non-recidivists and dangerous and hard-core criminals from occasional criminals had been enumerated by Exner in the following flowsheet:
(i) Hereditary weakness in the family life.
(ii) Increasing tempo of criminality.
(iii) Bad conditions in the parental home.
(iv) Bad school progress (especially in deportment and industriousness).
(v) Failure to complete studies once begun.
(vi) Irregular work (work shyness).::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 13
(vii) Onset of criminality before 18 years of age.
(viii) More than four previous sentences.
(ix) Quick relapse of crime.
.
(x) Interlocal criminality (mobility).
(xi) Psychopathic personality (diagnosis of institutional doctor).
(xii) Alcoholism.
(xiii) Release from the institution before 36 years of age.
(xiv) Bad conduct in the institution.
of
(xv) Bad social and family relations during the period of release.
At the same time, as criminality is the expression of the "symptom" of a certain disorder in the offenders, they can be easily reformed if they rt are rightly diagnosed and the correct treatment is administered to them."
8. This Court also held in Harbhajan Singh v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3599, that the parole can be denied if the release of the convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The mere nature of the offence cannot be a ground to deny parole when the prisoner's conduct shows a tendency to reform himself. It was observed:
"17. For rejection of an application for parole, there are two grounds set out in Section 6 of the Act. Firstly, in case a prisoner is released, he will likely to endanger the security of the State.
Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence committed under Section 302 IPC. But, in no way, it could be inferred that he is likely to endanger the security of the State, and even if so, the State has got enormous powers to put restrictions on the petitioner to protect the Security of the State. The second ground is the maintenance of public order. In this regard, in the response made by the District Magistrate, there is no reference as to whether he laid a threat to public order.::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 14
18. When these two grounds, set out in Section 6 of the Act, are not reflected or mirrored in the report of the District Magistrate, we have to presume that the District Magistrate has given its report without application of mind. When a provision or a statute .
directs an officer to do a particular job in a particular manner, it shall be the duty of that officer to do the said job in that particular manner only. When a District Magistrate is directed to make a report on the basis of assessment in an objective manner, he shall do it in that manner only.
19. Further, the rejection by the Government or the officer of authorized by the Government should be on two grounds, namely, when it is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order, which are lacking in the instant case.
rt
20. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, UT Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608: AIR 1981 SC 746, Hon'ble Mr Justice Marshal has aptly said and we quote. "I have previously stated my views that a prisoner does not shed his basic constitutional rights at the prison gate, and I fully support the court's holding that the interest of the inmate."
21. In Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295, it has been held that life means more than mere animal existence.
The right to live is not restricted to mere animal existence. It means something more than just physical survival.
22. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248:
AIR 1978 SC 597, which was followed in Francis Coralie v.
Delhi Administration, supra it has been held that the right to live does not mean mere confinement to physical existence but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.
23. Seeking parole/remission/pre-mature release or furlough is not a right of detinue. However, the same has to be considered in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The consideration should always keep in view the rights of the prisoners. The release of a prisoner from jail for a short period ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 15 has to be considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family 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 during .
incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens.
27. In Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the behaviour of the prisoners shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though cautious, parole will be allowed of to them so that their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build-up.
28. In Shakuntala Devi v. State of Delhi, (1996) 36 DRJ rt 545, it has been held as under:
"5. In Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan, it has been held by their Lordship that' "Release on parole is a wing of reformative process and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen." In Inder Singh v. State, the Apex Court has devised another humanizing strategy, viz. a guarded parole release every year for at least a month, punctuating the total prison term, for maintaining his family ties. A prisoner cannot maintain his family ties by living in a small world of his own cribbed, cabined and confined within the four walls of the prison. In the case of Inder Singh (supra), their lordships directed that:--
"........ if the behaviour of the prisoners shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though cautious, parole will be allowed to them so that their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build-up. After every period of one year, they should be enlarged on parole for two months. 'Their lordships further ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 16 added that "Article 21 of the Constitution in the jurisdiction root for this legal liberalism."
5. Though in the reply filed by the respondent-State, there is .
no denial to the fact that petitioner's conduct during incarceration was satisfactory, however, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected merely on the ground that family of the victim-prosecutrix as well as Gram Panchayat of the concerned area, has objected to the of release of the petitioner on parole on the ground that petitioner is a dangerous person and in the event of his being granted benefit of rt parole, he may cause harm to the family of the victim-prosecutrix.
6. However, this Court finds that no material has been placed on record to substantiate the aforesaid objection raised at the behest of the family of the victim-prosecutrix or to justify such apprehension. Merely because the petitioner had committed a heinous crime may not be sufficient to conclude that the petitioner is a dangerous person and in the event of being granted the benefit of parole, he would again commit a similar offence. Though this Court cannot have any quarrel with the arguments advanced by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, that person, who is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order, cannot be granted parole, however, it is equally settled that a threat to an individual does not constitute a threat to public order, as ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS 17 such, the parole could not have been rejected because of the objection raised by the victim's family.
7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is .
allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for 28 days subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Jail with an undertaking to maintain good of conduct during the period of parole and to surrender before the Superintendent Jail after the expiry of the period of parole. The rt petitioner is directed not to contact the victim's family. The Probation Officer is also directed to maintain a close watch on the activities of the petitioner and to report any deviation from the direction issued by the Court.
8. The Superintendent Jail is free to impose any other suitable condition at the time of the release of the petitioner.
Present petition stands disposed of in afore terms along with pending applications, if any.
March 20, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(sunil) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:31:00 :::CIS