Allowed

Nitya Nand v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Oct 2023CWP/7221/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a constitutional petition by a convict seeking parole. It held that the District Magistrate erred in denying parole solely based on the victim's family's objection without an independent application of mind. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the authorities to grant parole with specific safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting parole was quashed. The respondent was directed to reconsider and grant parole for 42 days with a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and specific conduct conditions.

Nitya Nand Vs State of Hp and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No: 7221 of 2023 Decided on: 12^th October, 2023

¶3

Nitya Nand

¶4

...Petitioner Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶6

…Respondents

¶7

Coram:

¶8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶9

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Yash Wardhan Chauhan, Sr. Additional Advocate Generals.

¶11

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner, a convict, has come up before

¶13

this Court, in the instant petition, against the denial of parole, seeking the following relief(s):-

¶14

(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 18.11.2022 in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶15

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

¶17

(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 42 days to meet with family member and to maintain social ties, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶18

2. FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶19

2(i). Case of the petitioner, is that he was

¶20

convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Mandi on 27.10.2021 under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. After having undergone a total sentence of three years three months and five days, in Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, (HP), the petitioner applied for parole on 10.08.2022, for 42 days, so as to enable him to meet his family members.

¶21

2 (ii). The request of the petitioner for parole, was turned down, by the Respondent/State on 18.11.2022,

¶22

¶23

Annexure P-2, (referred to as the impugned order ), due to the non-recommendation of his case by the District Magistrate concerned. It is averred that the impugned order has been passed without furnishing the grounds

¶24

/material leading to rejection of his request ; and by mechanically following the report of the Superintendent of Police concerned ; and when, District Magistrate has neither “resorted to an independent and impartial application of mind” nor “formed the requisite opinion” based on entire material on record either for accepting the request or for refusing the same and in these circumstances, the present petition was filed assailing the impugned order dated 18.11.2022, Annexure P-2, seeking parole.

¶25

3. STAND OF RESPONDENTS:

¶26

This Court issued notices to the respondents on 04.10.2023 directing them to file the reply within one week. Thereafter, the case was listed today {on 12.10.2023}, when, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General has furnished the Instructions dated 11.10.2023, which are taken

¶27

on record. A perusal of the Instructions reveal that the

¶28

¶29

request of the petitioner for parole was turned down in view of the report submitted by the local police to the District Magistrate concerned, based on the objection raised by the local inhabitants/family members of the victim. 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 18.11.2022, Annexure P-2 (supra).

¶30

4. We have heard Mr. Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the

¶31

respondents- State and have gone through the records.

¶32

5. LEGAL POSITION:

¶33

5(i). At the very outset, it would be relevant to take note of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asfaq Versus State of Rajasthan and others, (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 55. The Apex

¶34

Court has enunciated the object of granting parole to a convict. It has been emphasized that the parole is granted

¶35

with the objective of reformation of a convict. It has been

¶36

held that the convicts have a right to breathe fresh air albeit for short periods. The main purpose of parole is to

¶37

¶38

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:-

¶39

“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 behavior 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 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

¶40

¶41

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:

¶42

(i) member of the prisoner's family has died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or

¶43

(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

¶44

(iv) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause;

¶45

(v) parole can be granted only after a portion of sentence is already served;

¶46

(vi) if conditions of parole are not abided by the parolee he may be returned to serve his sentence in prison, such conditions may be such as those of committing a new offence; and

¶47

¶48

(vii) parole may also be granted on the basis of aspects related to health of convict himself.

¶49

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 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, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for good of societies must receive due weightage while they are undergoing sentence of imprisonment .

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

¶55

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.

¶56

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

¶57

10 -

¶58

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.

¶59

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 lawabiding citizens. Thus, parole program should be used as a tool to shape such adjustments .

¶60

21. To sum up, in introducing penal reforms,

¶61

11 -

¶62

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.

¶63

12 -

¶64

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 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

¶65

13 -

¶66

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.

¶67

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. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 488, Maneka

¶68

14 -

¶69

Gandhi v. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248, and Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jai, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104.}

¶70

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 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.”

¶71

(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”,

¶72

15 -

¶73

which provides for temporary release of the prisoners on certain conditions. Section 3 and Section 6 of the Act, read as under:-

¶74

“3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds.-

¶75

(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,-

¶76

(a) a member of the prisoner's family has died or is seriously ill ; or

¶77

(b) the marriage of the prisoner's son or daughter is to be celebrated ; or

¶78

(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

¶79

(d) it is desirable so to do for any other sufficient cause.

¶80

(2). The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the Government so as not to exceed,-

¶81

(a) Where the prisoner is to be released

¶82

16 -

¶83

on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), two weeks;

¶84

(b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and

¶85

¶86

(3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.

¶87

(4) The Government may, by notification, authorize any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein.”

¶88

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 authorized 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.”

¶89

5(iii). In exercise of powers conferred under Section

¶90

17 -

¶91

10 of the Act, the 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:-

¶92

“3. Procedure for temporary release. –

¶93

(1) A prisoner desirous of seeking temporary 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.

¶94

(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 prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. The District Magistrate shall

¶95

18 -

¶96

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 period of three days from the date of receipt of the recommendations of the District Magistrate.

¶97

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.

¶98

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

¶99

19 -

¶100

and the exact relation of the prisoner with the deceased in order to ascertain the nearness of the relationship.

¶101

The Superintendent of Jail shall also take into consideration the prisoner's past criminal history and behavior in the prison since admission as recorded in his case file and the likelihood of his not abusing the concession of parole, if granted.

¶102

The Superintendent of Jail shall without fail submit the case file of the prisoner to whom 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.”

¶103

[Underlining ours]

¶104

5(iv). A perusal of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968

¶105

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

¶106

20 -

¶107

the application for parole is to be processed, examined and decided by the competent authorities. Section 6 of the Act bars the release of the prisoners, in specified eventualities, in case the release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order.

¶108

6. ANALYSIS:

¶109

6(i). As per the mandate of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and Rule 3 of the Rules, the District Magistrate was bound to verify the facts, to ascertain the genuineness of the grounds on which parole was requested and then to form an opinion based on an impartial and independent application of mind after considering the entire material i.e. reports-recommendations-inputs etc made by all the designated authorities and then in taking a holistic view of the matter.

¶110

In the instant case, a perusal of the order dated 18.11.2022, Annexure P-2, reveals that the District Magistrate has not recommended the case of the petitioner for parole, by relying upon the report of the Superintendent of Police concerned, which reflects that

¶111

21 -

¶112

in the instant case, the relatives (i.e. mother of victim as well as the victim vide Annexure C (colly) with the Instructions so furnished), have raised an objection. We are of the considered view that once the conduct and behavior of the petitioner in custody, with other inmates and prison staff was good therefore, the correctional therapy needs to be given a facelift. Moreover, once nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner then, the mere objection raised by the mother of victim or the victim cannot be made the sole basis for depriving the petitioner of the concession of parole, so as to enable him to move towards reformation and to re-establish his social ties and family ties. Further, the mere objection by the relative/victim cannot be the sole determinative basis for refusing parole. The objection raised by relative /victim cannot be given “pre-dominance and over-weightage” by totally “brushing aside the other available relevant material(s)-inputs-reports furnished by other designated authorities while forming an opinion” as required by the applicable Statute and the Law. In these circumstances, the inaction of District Magistrate has brushed aside these

¶113

22 -

¶114

aspects, then, the same is sufficient to vitiate the entire decision making process and therefore, the action of the respondents in not recommending the case of the petitioner for parole does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny, being erroneous in law.

¶115

6(ii). The case records manifest that once the designated authorities under the State Act and Rules had submitted various reports-recommendations-inputs which were in favour of the petitioner but respondents have “failed to resort to a comprehensive exercise for formation of required opinion, after taking into account entire material i.e. reports-recommendations-inputs, in the context of the object and rationale of Parole as mandated by the Statute, Rules and Law in the case of Asfaq (supra) and therefore, the opinion formation, the non-recommendation of the case of the petitioner and the impugned orders denying the parole are illegal, arbitrary and cannot be permitted to operate. Accordingly, the same are set-aside.

¶116

6(iii). We now proceed to examine the case from

¶117

23 -

¶118

another angle. Provision of Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 stipulates that the temporary release-parole can be denied only if the release of a convict is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

¶119

In the present case, the respondents have

¶120

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 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 the parole to the petitioner does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is setaside.

¶121

6(iv). Records reveal that once the conduct and behavior of the petitioner while in custody has been

¶122

found to be good and nothing adverse existed against him then, the action of respondents in not recommending

¶123

the case for parole will certainly amount to frustrating and

¶124

24 -

¶125

defeating the very object, purpose and rationale of granting parole, as carved out by the enactment(s) and

¶126

the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the

¶127

case of Asfaq (supra). Accordingly, the inaction of the respondents and the impugned order is thus untenable in law.

¶128

6(v). The stand of the respondents that the parole cannot be claimed as of right is not in dispute. However, we are of the considered view, that even if

¶129

the parole is a concession, then also, the authorities

¶130

are bound to exercise its discretion in fair, impartial

¶131

and judicious manner, by taking a holistic view after taking into account all the relevant factor(s)/materials i.e. reports-recommendations-inputs but without giving

¶132

any predominance or over-weightage to one factor only and by brushing aside other material(s)-factors, as has been done in the instant case.

¶133

6(vi). The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in

¶134

CWP No 3516 of 2021, titled as Virender Kumar @ Bindu Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶135

25 -

¶136

decided, on 23.07.2021, has outlined that the statement /objection made by the local police or the relative cannot

¶137

be the sole basis for denying parole to a convict. Para 5 is reproduced here-in-below:-

¶138

“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 has not expressed his objective satisfaction in not recommending release of the petitioner. He has only expressed that victim’s father and the 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

¶139

26 -

¶140

the Act and the Rules, then probably the petitioner will never be able to get the parole.

¶141

(Underlining Ours)

¶142

6(vii). It goes without saying, that the apprehension,

¶143

of respondents, if any, which is, based on the statement /objection raised by local inhabitants or relative) can

¶144

be adequately safeguarded by imposing stringent/strict conditions before releasing the petitioner on parole. It is

¶145

also made clear that during the parole period, if the petitioner involves or attempts or conspires to commit any of the offences in law ; then, such involvement or attempt shall entail cancellation of parole automatically.

¶146

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of

¶147

the instant case, we may add that during the parole

¶148

period, the petitioner shall not leave his village except in case of his own extreme medical exigency and that too after informing the concerned SI/SHO as well as the Pardhan, Gram Panchayat concerned and failure to comply with this condition shall also entail automatic cancellation of the parole of the petitioner. It is further mandated that in case the petition involves himself in

¶149

27 -

¶150

commission of any offence or abets any offence or gives

¶151

any threatening(s) either to the victim or her relatives in any manner, then, the same shall entail cancellation of parole automatically. It is made clear that on the expiry of Parole period, the petitioner shall surrender before the Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District

¶152

Sirmour (HP). In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Respondents are at liberty to impose any other just and reasonable condition(s), as deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

¶153

7. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:

¶154

7(i). In view of the above discussion, the instant

¶155

writ petition is allowed, with the following directions :-

¶156

(i) Order dated 18.11.2022, Annexure P-2, rejecting the request of the petitioner for parole is quashed and set-aside.

¶157

(ii) Respondents are directed to re-consider the case and to extend the concession of parole to the petitioner, for a period of 42 days ; on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 2,00,000/- with

¶158

two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Superintendent Jail, Model

¶159

28 -

¶160

Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh.

¶161

(iii) It is also made clear that the petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour (HP), on expiry of parole period. In case, the petitioner breaches any of the conditions of parole order or creates

¶162

any law and order problem, then, the respondents are free to cancel the parole and take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. s

¶163

(iv). In peculiar facts and circumstances, herein, respondents are at liberty to impose any other just and reasonable condition(s), in addition to the conditions mentioned in Para 6(vii), of this Order, supra, if deemed fit and proper, to meet the ends of justice.

¶164

8. The instant writ petition is allowed in

¶165

the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

¶166

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶167

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶168

October 12, 2023 (TM)

Nitya Nand v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitya Nand v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Nadeem Akram Vs State of Hp

Jasmer Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Shyam Veer Vs State of Hp and Others

Prem Chand Vs State of Hp

Lakhbir Singh Vs State of Hp

Gurjant Singh Vs State of Hp and Others