Allowed¶15

Subodh Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Jul 2026CWP/2435/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parole/temporary-release delay writ, CWP No. 2435 of 2026, HP High Court: Rule 3(2) HP Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules 1969; Para 19.18 Prison Manual; binding effect of District Magistrate recommendation rejected; Releasing Authority (IG Prisons) independent discretion; police reasons for disagreement (law-and-order); Gopalganj Bihar verification; strict adherence to timelines per Mohan Lal 2025:HHC:16369; mandamus to decide parole within 2 weeks; POCSO convict serving 25-year sentence.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to decide the petitioner's parole application within 2 weeks; petition stands disposed of along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any. ¶15

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to decide the petitioner's parole application within 2 weeks; petition stands disposed of along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether Rule 3(2) of the Prisoners Rules makes the District Magistrate's recommendation essential/binding, so that the Releasing Authority cannot decide the parole application in the absence of a specific recommendation from the District Magistrate. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Rule 3(2) of the Prisoners Rules, 1969 does not make the District Magistrate's report binding on the Releasing Authority; it requires the Releasing Authority to consider the recommendations while simultaneously exercising its own independent judgment.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Interpreting Rule 3(2) as making the District Magistrate's recommendation decisive would elevate the District Magistrate to the position of final authority and relinquish the decision-making power vested in the Releasing Authority; such an interpretation is not accepted.

¶10

Key takeaways

The Releasing Authority's jurisdiction to determine release or furlough stems from its duty to consider the reports of the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and also the Superintendent of Jail; the Inspector General of Prisons has unique knowledge and expertise of conditions within the jail, so the assertion that the Releasing Authority lacks independence to decide is untenable.ratio¶11
Per Para 19.18 of the Prison Manual, the police must specify reasons when they disagree with a proposed release; here the police had reported that the petitioner's release could cause a law-and-order problem, and the District Magistrate had forwarded the report directing action per the rules, so both opinions were already before the Releasing Authority, which was thereafter obliged to act.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (single judge, not approved for reporting). Subodh Kumar, convicted on 25.07.2023 in FIR No. 76 of 2019 for offences under Sections 452, 506 and 376(3) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act and undergoing 25 years' rigorous imprisonment, sought a writ of mandamus to compel decision of his parole application filed on 29.07.2024, which had lain undecided pending a 'specific recommendation' from the District Magistrate, Gopalganj (Bihar). Held: (i) Rule 3(2), Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969 does not make the District Magistrate's report binding; the Releasing Authority (Inspector General of Prisons) must weigh the DM and SP recommendations while exercising independent judgment, also considering the Superintendent of Jail's report; treating the DM's recommendation as indispensable would improperly transfer the Releasing Authority's decision-making power to the District Magistrate. (ii) Para 19.18 of the Prison Manual requires the police to give reasons for disagreement with a proposed release; the police had cited possible law-and-order problems and the District Magistrate had forwarded the report for action as per the rules, leaving the decision with the Releasing Authority. (iii) Failure to decide the application for over a year without sufficient cause breached the timelines which, following this Court's decision in Mohan Lal (2025:HHC:16369), must be strictly adhered to. Petition allowed; respondents directed to decide the parole application within two weeks; observations confined to this disposal.

¶1

2026:HHC:28010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 2435 of 2026 Reserved on: 22.06.2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026

¶4

Subodh Kumar ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of HP & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶9

For the Petitioner	: Mr Yudhbir Advocate.Mr.	Singh	Thakur,
For the Respondents/State :	Mr Loken	der	Kutlehria,
	Additional Adv	ocate	General.Ajit

¶10

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application for parole within 2 weeks or to release the petitioner on parole for 42 days.

¶12

It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Special Court,

¶13

POCSO, Shimla, on 25.07.2023 in FIR No. 76 of 2019 for the

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

2026:HHC:28010

¶18

commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 506, and 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 25 years. He has already undergone a sentence of 6 years, 5 months and 22 days till 16.11.2025. The petitioner applied for parole on 29.07.2024 to meet his wife, aged parents, and minor children. The application has not been decided for over 18 months. The petitioner's family is facing hardship because of the petitioner's absence. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and a writ of mandamus as stated above be issued.

¶19

The petition is opposed by respondents 1 to 3 by filing a reply, making preliminary submissions that the petitioner’s case is governed by the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners Act (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969 (Prisoners Rules). The petitioner had applied for parole on 29.07.2024. His application was sent to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, District Gopalganj, Bihar, for their recommendations/verification as required under the Prisoners Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Learned District Magistrate

¶20

¶21

2026:HHC:28010

¶22

submitted his report vide letter dated 02.08.2025. However, the report was not specific, and he was requested to provide a clear and specific recommendation vide letter dated 04.09.2025. Reminders were issued on 17.01.2026, 12.03.2026 and 24.03.2026. The recommendation of the learned District Magistrate is essential for granting the parole. Since no recommendation was received, no action could be taken in the matter. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶23

I have heard Mr Yudhbir Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.

¶24

Mr Yudhbir Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents have failed to decide the petitioner’s application despite the lapse of more than one year. This is violative of the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of H.P. & Another 2025:HHC:16369 . Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the directions as prayed be issued to the respondents.

¶25

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State, submitted that respondents No.

¶26

¶27

2026:HHC:28010

¶28

1 to 3 had forwarded the petitioner's application to respondent No.

¶29

4 for giving a specific recommendation in the matter. However, respondent no. 4 did not provide any specific recommendation despite various letters and reminders issued by respondents 1 to 3. The recommendation of the District Magistrate is essential before a person can be released on parole, and the petitioner's case could not be decided in the absence of the specific recommendation. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶30

I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶31

A perusal of the letter (Annexure R-2/4) shows that the police had submitted a report that no FIR was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was lodged in jail at Shimla. The petitioner was of a criminal nature, and his release could lead to law-and-order problems in the area. This report was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate, who forwarded the report stating that action be taken as per the rules in the light of the report submitted by the Police. Thus, the District Magistrate had stated that the action be taken as per the Rules, and

¶32

¶33

2026:HHC:28010

¶34

it is not correct to say that no report was sent by the District Magistrate.

¶35

It was submitted that the District Magistrate had not recommended the grant/refusal of parole, and in the absence of such a recommendation, no action could be taken in the matter. A reference was made to Rule 3 (2) of the Prisoners' Rules in this regard. This submission cannot be accepted. Rule 3 (2) of the Prisoners Rules, 1969 reads as under: -

¶36

“3. (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 the grounds of the prisoner's presence being dangerous to the security of the State or prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. The District Magistrate shall 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 the report of the Superintendent Jail, who shall decide the parole/ furlough case ordinarily within three days from the date of receipt of the recommendations of the District Magistrate.

¶37

In the event of the serious illness of a 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 the death of a close relation, i.e. father, mother, brother, sister, spouse or child

¶38

¶39

2026:HHC:28010

¶40

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.

¶41

The Superintendent of Jail should release a prisoner on parole immediately on receipt of a death certificate, provided he satisfies himself independently within a reasonable time about the genuineness of the certificate. To satisfy himself, he will approach the concerned Police Station by wireless and verify the truth of the death and the exact relationship of the prisoner with the deceased to ascertain the nearness of the relationship.

¶42

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

¶43

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.”

¶44

A careful perusal of the Rule shows that it does not provide that the report of the District Magistrate is binding upon

¶45

the releasing authority. Had it been so, the rule would have specifically stated so. It only provides that the releasing authority must consider the recommendations provided by the District Agency, while simultaneously exercising its independent judgment. Accepting the submission made on behalf of the Releasing Authority would elevate the District Magistrate to the position of the final authority, thereby relinquishing the decision-

¶46

¶47

2026:HHC:28010

¶48

making power vested in the Releasing Authority to the District Magistrate. Consequently, such an interpretation cannot be accepted.

¶49

The Releasing Authority’s jurisdiction to determine the release or furlough of an inmate stems from its responsibility to consider not only the report of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, but also the report submitted by the Superintendent of Jail. As the Inspector General of Prisoners, the Releasing Authority possesses the unique knowledge and expertise to assess the prevailing conditions within the jail and make an informed decision regarding the appropriateness of parole. Therefore, the assertion that the Releasing Authority lacks the independence to make such a decision is untenable.

¶50

Para 19.18 of the Prison Manual deals with the procedure of release of prisoners and reads as under: -

¶51

“19.18 The Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application so received to the Superintendent of police of the concerned district within 3 days of receipt of the application, along with the recommendation of the Superintendent of Prison for his report through the District Magistrate concerned. The Superintendent of Police shall send his report to the competent authority through the District Magistrate within 14 days from the date of receipt of the reference of the competent authority. The District Magistrate is allowed 3

¶52

¶53

2026:HHC:28010

¶54

days to forward the report of the Superintendent of Police, so received, to the competent authority. In case the police disagree with the proposed release of a prisoner on leave, reasons for such disagreement should be specified. The competent authority is allowed a period of 7 days to decide on the application from the date of receipt of the report of the District Magistrate was received by him.”

¶55

It is apparent from the above para of the Prison Manual

¶56

that the police have to give the reasons for disagreement in case it disagrees with the proposed release of the prisoner. In the present case, the police had mentioned in the report submitted by them that the petitioner's release could give rise to a law-and-order problem in the area. Therefore, the police have provided the reasons for disagreement. The District Magistrate had also mentioned in his report that a suitable action be taken as per the rules in the light of the report of the police. Therefore, the Police and the District Magistrate had submitted their opinions to the Releasing Authority, and it was for the Releasing Authority, thereafter, to take action in the matter.

¶57

Therefore, the Releasing Authority has failed to take action in the present matter, and the petitioner’s grievance is justified that his application is not being decided despite the lapse of more than one year without any sufficient cause.

¶58

¶59

2026:HHC:28010

¶60

This Court had held in Mohan Lal (supra) that the timeline provided in the Prisoners Act, Rules, and the Prison Manual should be strictly adhered to. In the present case, the respondents have failed to adhere to the timeline provided under the Prisoners Act and the Rules. Therefore, the present petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to decide the petitioners' application for the grant of parole within a period of 2 weeks.

¶61

The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will not influence the Releasing Authority in any manner while deciding the application for release.

¶62

The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶63

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶64

10^th July, 2026 (Nikita)

Subodh Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Sharma Vs Anupam

Ashish Sharma Vs Anupam

Ashish Sharma Vs Anupam

Ajit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Naresh Verma Vs Punjab National Bank and another

Sahil @ Sonu Vs State of Hp