Writ petition challenging rejection of parole application. Court held parole is not a right. Dismissed petition upholding District Magistrate's decision based on petitioner's prior absconding and security threats.
Petition for quashing of rejection letter and grant of parole dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 468 of 2023
Decided on: 10th March, 2023
Kapil Dev @ Kaplu
.......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with, Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy. A.G.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:-
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
3
being that the petitioner on an earlier occasion had been released for 14 days on parole w.e.f. 07.07.2010 to 21.07.2010 with a direction to surrender before the Jail authorities on 21.07.2010, but the petitioner failed to surrender and remained absconded for a period of 10 years, 7 months and 24 days and eventually surrendered on 15.03.2021. A complaint under Section 8/9 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 was also filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra by the concerned Superintendent Jail and the learned Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months, vide judgment dated 27.04.2022.
4
of seeking temporary release are forwarded to the District Magistrate of the concerned District for his recommendations. The District Magistrate after consulting the Superintendent of Police and making such inquiries as deemed fit makes his recommendations. In case the District Magistrate, on his inquiry, is satisfied that the release of convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, he may hold that the convict is not entitled to be released on parole.
5
because the petitioner along-with his six brothers was sentenced in a murder case. That apart, even the police authorities have expressed their apprehension in case the petitioner is released on parole, he would again jump the same as is evident from the report of SDPO, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge March 10, 2023 ( Virender Singh ) (naveen) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's parole application by the District Magistrate was contrary to law given his history of absconding.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the administrative decision to deny parole based on security concerns.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kapil Dev @ Kaplu
State of H.P and others
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Virender Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
