Bal Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

1 2025:HHC:33890 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.	: 14 038 of 2025
Decided on	: 07.10 . 2025
Bal Ram	…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others	…Respondents

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

¶6

For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Avni Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocates General.

¶7

Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

¶8

By way of the present writ petition, petitionerBal Ram has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs, amongst others:

¶9

“(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quash and set aside Annexure P-2

¶10

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

2 2025:HHC:33890

¶12

dated 13-03-2025, in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶13

(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, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶14

As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge (Family Court), Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment, dated 25^th July, 2024, for the offence, punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of 1,₹ 00,000/-.

¶15

The petitioner applied for grant of parole for a period of 42 days, by way of application, dated 24^th October, 2024 (Annexure P-1), in order to meet his family. 4. According to the petitioner, his application has been rejected by respondent No. 2, on 30^th March, 2025, vide Annexure P-2, without assigning any justifiable reason.

¶16

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order (Annexure P- 2), by virtue of which, the request of the petitioner for

¶17

3 2025:HHC:33890

¶18

releasing him on parole, has been rejected. A prayer has also been made to allow his request for parole.

¶19

When put to notice, the factual position, with regard to conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner, has not been disputed by the respondents.

¶20

It has also not been disputed that the petitioner had applied for grant of 42 days’ parole, on 24^th October, 2024, in order to meet his family.

¶21

According to the respondents, the request of the petitioner was duly forwarded to the District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, Haryana, however, District Magistrate, Rohtak, has not recommended the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime, involving illegal narcotic substances and if released on parole, may commit another such offence. The likelihood of breach of law and order and disturbance of peace in the area have also been made basis to reject the prayer of the petitioner. Further, according to the District Magistrate, the petitioner has no permanent address and his family is

¶22

4 2025:HHC:33890

¶23

residing in a rented house, hence, he may abscond after being released on parole.

¶24

The other allegations have also been controverted by the respondents.

¶25

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.

¶26

As per the custody certificate, the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner, as on 26^th August, 2025, is three years, eight months and twenty six days. The petitioner has applied for 42 days’ parole, which was recommended to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Rohtak, vide letter, dated 15^th January, 2025, on the grounds, aforementioned.

¶27

The primary purpose of releasing the convict on parole has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Asfaq versus State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2017) 15 SCC 55. Relevant paras-17 to 24, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

¶28

“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

¶29

5 2025:HHC:33890

¶30

out for some time so that he is able to maintain his family and social contact. This reason finds justifcation in one of thei 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.

¶31

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 aford to themf 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.

¶32

6 2025:HHC:33890

¶33

(self emphasis supplied)

¶34

In light of the above decision, this Court would now proceed to consider the fact as to whether the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer, seeking his release on parole, is sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶35

The ground, upon which, the prayer of the petitioner has been declined by the respondents, is the recommendation made by the District Magistrate, Mandi. The said recommendation has been made on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime, involving illegal narcotic substances and if released on parole, may commit another such offence and that the likelihood of breach of law and order and disturbance of peace in the area cannot be ruled out. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner has no permanent address and his family is residing in a rented house, hence, he may abscond after being released on parole.

¶36

In light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asfaq’s case (supra), this Court is of the view that the prisoners should be allowed to maintain their family and social ties. They should also be given an

¶37

7 2025:HHC:33890

¶38

opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society.

¶39

In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of the application of the petitioner for grant of parole, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶40

So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed, in this case, are concerned, reasonable/ stringent conditions can be imposed, in case, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, is granted to the petitioner.

¶41

In such situation, in the considered opinion of this Court, rejection order, dated 30^th March, 2025 (Annexure P-2), is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, the same is quashed and set aside. The prayer, so made in the application (Annexure P-1) is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole, for a period of 42 days.

¶42

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, in the following terms:

¶43

(i) Order, dated 30^th March, 2025 (Annexure P- 2), rejecting the request of the petitioner for parole, is quashed and set-asside;

¶44

8 2025:HHC:33890

¶45

(ii) Respondents are directed 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 ₹ 1,00,000/-, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P.;

¶46

(iii) It is made clear that the petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P., on expiry of parole period. In case, the petitioner breaches any of the conditions of parole order or creates any law and order problem, then, the respondents are free to cancel the parole and take action against the petitioner, in accordance with law;

¶47

(iv) In peculiar facts and circumstances, of the case, the respondents are at liberty to impose any other just and reasonable condition(s), in addition to the conditions mentioned hereinabove, if deemed fit and proper, to meet the ends of justice;

¶48

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

¶49