Allowed¶35

Jawahar Lal v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jan 2025CWP/15293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.15293 of 2024, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (02.01.2025): convict Jawahar Lal granted 42 days' parole despite police objection based on old FIRs (ND&PS Act S.20; IPC S.224); reformation rationale; personal bond Rs.1,00,000 plus two sureties Rs.50,000 each; Model Central Jail Kanda; order dated 19.09.2024 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Release on parole for 42 days (for agricultural work and to maintain family and social ties) on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P.; surrender immediately on expiry of the 42-day parole; order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) set aside; pending applications disposed of. ¶35

Jawahar Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the convict-petitioner is entitled to release on parole for 42 days for agricultural work and to maintain family and social ties, notwithstanding that the local police did not recommend sanction of parole on account of previously registered FIRs.

¶19

Court's answer

Parole is normally granted to enable prisoners to maintain family and social ties; recognising reformation as an objective of punishment justifies letting out even life convicts for short periods on parole so that they can solve personal and family problems and maintain links with society.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed: the order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) is set aside and parole is extended to the petitioner for 42 days on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P.

¶30

Key takeaways

The petitioner's parole shall be liable to cancellation if he breaches any condition of the parole order and/or creates law and order problems, which will be treated as a negative factor for his future similar prayers.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Parole — Convict-petitioner sought certiorari to quash order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) and mandamus for 42 days' parole for agricultural work and to maintain family and social ties. Police had withheld recommendation citing FIR No.19/2016 and FIR No.403/1996 under S.20 ND&PS Act and FIR No.409/1996 under S.224 IPC; Gram Panchayat had no objection; petitioner had earlier availed 192 days parole without breach, and the FIRs stood considered in an earlier order. Held (HHC, oral, per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.; Rakesh Kainthla, J.): parole ordinarily enables a prisoner to maintain family and social ties, and recognising reformation as an objective of punishment justifies short-period release even of life convicts; police non-recommendation on account of the said FIRs was not a bar in these circumstances. Writ petition allowed: Annexure P-2 set aside; 42 days' parole granted on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Kanda, Shimla; surrender on expiry; parole cancellable for breach of conditions or law-and-order problems, a negative factor for future prayers.

¶1

¶2

2025:HHC:214

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

CWP No.15293 of 2024

¶5

Date of Decision : 02.01.2025

¶6

Jawahar Lal …… Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶9

……Respondents.

¶10

Coram:

¶11

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

For the Respondents : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General.

¶15

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)

¶16

The petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the

¶17

following substantive reliefs:-

¶18

“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 19.09.2024 in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶19

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 for agriculture work and to maintain family and

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

2025:HHC:214

¶23

social ties in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶24

A stereotype defence has been taken in the reply by the respondents opposing the prayer made by the petitioner to the effect that even though the Gram Panchayat has no objection to the parole being granted to the petitioner, yet the local police have not recommended the sanction of parole in view of FIR No.19/2016 under Section 20 of ND&PS Act, FIR No.403/1996 dated 08.10.1996 under Section 20 of ND&PS Act and FIR No. 409/1996 dated 15.10.1996 under Section 224 of IPC.

¶25

The petitioner has availed 192 days parole and has not violated any of the conditions of parole, when released on parole, on earlier occasions. The fact with respect to registration of the aforesaid F.I.Rs. against the petitioner has already been considered in the earlier order.

¶26

It is more than settled that parole is normally granted in order to enable the prisoners 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 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

¶27

¶28

2025:HHC:214

¶29

and reformation. When we recognize reformation as one of the objective, 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, al beit 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.

¶30

In these facts and circumstances, we are persuaded to allow the present writ petition filed by the petitioner by setting aside the order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) and, consequently, the benefit of parole is ordered to be extended in favour of the petitioner for a period of 42 days, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50, 000/each, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P. The petitioner shall surrender before the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P. immediately on expiry of 42 days of parole. However, the petitioner’s parole shall be liable to be cancelled in case he breaches any of the conditions of the parole order and/or creates law and order

¶31

¶32

2025:HHC:214

¶33

problems, which shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration

¶34

of his similar prayers in the future.

¶35

The instant petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge

¶37

02^nd January, 2025. (ravinder)

¶38

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶39

Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, KARAN SINGH OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e225878f23c9ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec939375291962d0d90d0948 GULERIA 76bd59591426c0b1ce651f01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2025-01-02 17:02:05

Jawahar Lal v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahar Lal v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bihari Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Desh Raj Vs Simro Devi

Pushap Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Radha Vs Sahil Yadav

Ms Deluxe Enterprises Vs Union of India

Vinod Kashyap Vs Sunita and Others