Allowed

Ravi Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Mar 2026CWP/625/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a writ petition seeking parole for a convict facing a ten-year sentence under the NDPS Act. The court quashed orders rejecting parole, holding that the nature of the offence cannot be a bar if statutory grounds like agricultural work exist. Parole of 42 days was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; petitioner released on parole for 42 days subject to furnishing personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties and undertaking to maintain good conduct.

Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.625 of 2026

¶3

Date of Decision: 20.03.2026

¶4

____________________________________ Ravi Kumar	___________________ …….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
____________________________________ Coram:	___________________

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Somesh Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶7

The petitioner, who is presently undergoing sentence for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) , has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to release him on parole.

¶8

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that FIR No.19 of 2023 came to be registered

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

¶11

against the petitioner at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 20 & 29 of the Act and Section 192 of MVD Act, on the allegations that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the car of the petitioner, which was found parked in front of his house. Learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh held petitioner guilty of his having committed offence punishable under the Act and vide judgment dated 07.12.2024, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine to the tune of Rs. 1, 00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 20 of the Act. After having undergone approximately three years sentence, petitioner herein applied for grant of parole before the competent authority, but such prayer of him came to be rejected vide orders dated 07.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 23.07.2025 ( Annexures P-2 to P- 4) on the ground that petitioner stands convicted for a heinous offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act. 3. Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Somesh Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the petitioner, is that the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot be a ground to reject the prayer made on

¶12

¶13

his behalf for grant of parole, especially when the petitioner already stands convicted and is undergoing sentence on that account. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further submitted that since petitioner, for his having committed offence punishable under Section 20 & 29 of the Act, has been already convicted for ten years, coupled with the fact that he has already undergone sentence of approximately three years, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to reject his prayer for grant of parole, which he is otherwise entitled to in terms of Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968. While referring to orders dated 07.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 23.07.2025 (Annexures P-2 to P-4) , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though conduct of the petitioner during his stay in jail for approximately three years has been found to be good and satisfactory, but yet benefit of parole has been denied to him solely on the ground that he stands convicted for a heinous crime punishable under Section 20 &29 of the Act and in the event of his being enlarged on parole, he may again indulge in these activities, whereas in terms of the Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, he is entitled to temporary release on

¶14

¶15

certain grounds. He submitted that since there is none in the family to take care of land of the petitioner and petitioner wants to make necessary arrangement for ploughing, sowing or harvesting his crop, he is otherwise entitled to be given benefit of parole for a period of 42 days. He states that since entire family of the petitioner is residing in District Kangra, coupled with the fact that genuine reason for parole exist, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of parole deserves to be considered.

¶16

Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the reply filed by the respondents, submitted that since petitioner is a drug addict and has been involved in the sale and purchase of narcotic substances, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on parole because in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, rather may again indulge in these activities.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material adduced on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein, pursuant to his conviction under Section 20 & 29 of the Act, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine to

¶18

¶19

the tune of Rs. 1, 00,000/- in terms of judgment dated 07.12.2024. It is not in dispute that petitioner has already undergone sentence for approximately three years. Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act entitles a convict to seek temporary release on parole, which can be granted for one of the reason as detailed in Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners

¶20

(Temporary Release) Act, which reads as under:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

(a) Where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), two weeks; (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

¶28

(c) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), six weeks. (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.

¶29

(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”.

¶30

Rule 3(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, clearly provides that a convict can be temporarily released on parole for the purpose of ploughing, sowing and harvesting or carrying on any other agriculture operations on his land and no friend of prisoner or a member of the prisoner’s family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence. In the present case, once petitioner has

¶31

been able to establish on record that there is none to plough, sow or harvest or carry on agriculture operation on his land, he is entitled to be granted benefit of parole. Prayer made on behalf of

¶32

¶33

the petitioner for grant of parole cannot be denied on the ground of gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him for which otherwise he already stands convicted and sentenced for

¶34

ten years.

¶35

By now, it is well settled that Court, while considering the prayer for parole, is not to be swayed by the nature and gravity of offence or the sentence which the convict is undergoing, rather case for grant of parole is to be considered keeping in view the object of granting parole. It is also to be kept in mind that a convict despite being convicted is required to make necessary arrangements for his family as well as his property, be it moveable or immoveable.

¶36

At this stage, it would be profitable to take note of Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, which inter-alia provides that a convict can be released on parole for the purpose of ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agriculture operation on his land, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the competent authority solely on the ground that he stands convicted for a heinous crime and that in the

¶37

¶38

event of his being enlarged on parole, he may again indulge in these activities.

¶39

At this stage, it would be apt to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Asfaq versus State of Rajasthan and other, passed in Civil Appeal No.10464 of 2017 arising out of SLP(C) No.16803 of 2017, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court, while elaborating upon the object and purpose of grant of parole, has also drawn a distinction between parole and furlough. It has been held that a parole can be defined as conditional release of prisoners i.e. an earlier release of prisoner, conditional on good behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set period of time, whereas furlough can be granted in long terms imprisonment. Relevant paras No. 7,9, 12, 16 and 37 of aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein blow:-

¶40

“7) We may state at the outset that the reason because of which the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is not an apposite one and does not meet the test of law. The petition is dismissed only on the ground that the appellant is convicted in a case of serious and heinous crime and, therefore, parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As per the discussion that would follow hereinafter, the conviction in a serious and heinous crime cannot be the reason for denying the parole per se. Another observation made by the High Court is that since this Court had decided the appeal of the appellant affirming the conviction, it would not be appropriate for the High

¶41

¶42

Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant and if he so desires he may approach this Court for the said purpose. This again amounts to abdication of the power vested in the High Court. Insofar as conviction for the offence for which he was charged, i.e. under the provisions of TADA, is concerned, no doubt that has been upheld till this Court. However, the issue before the High Court was entirely different. It was as to whether the appellant is entitled to the grant of parole for twenty days which he was claiming. Merely because the matter of conviction of the appellant had come up to this Court would not mean that the appellant has to be relegated to this Court every time, even when he is seeking the reliefs unconnected with the main conviction. It is more so when in the first instance it is the High Court which is supposed to decide such a prayer for parole made by the appellant. With these remarks, we advert to the issue at hand.

¶43

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 behaviour 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 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:

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

(ii) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand daughter, brother, sister, sister's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or

¶47

(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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

(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

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

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 order of the society, should not be released on parole. This aspect takes care of other objectives

¶54

¶55

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.

¶56

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 behaviour 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 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:

¶57

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

¶58

(ix) the marriage of the prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand daughter, brother, sister, sister's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or

¶59

(x) 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

¶60

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

¶61

¶62

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

¶63

(xiii) 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

¶64

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

¶65

Most importantly, in afore judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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 and for this purpose, he has to come out for some time so that he is able to maintain his family and social contact. Most importantly, Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment held that theory of criminology underlines that the main objectives which a State intends to achieve by punishing the culprit are: deterrence, prevention, retribution and reformation. When we recognize 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

¶66

¶67

fresh air, albeit for periods. Most importantly, Hon'ble Apex Court

¶68

in aforesaid judgment held that there cannot be any presumption that a person, who is convicted for serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso- facto, treated as a hardened criminal, rather 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. 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 categorized as a hardened criminal. Hon'ble Apex Court in afore judgment held that release on parole is designed to afford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified exigencies, which shall also include temporary release of the prisoner

¶69

for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agriculture operation on his land or his father’s undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner.

¶70

Careful perusal of the orders laid challenge in the instant proceedings clearly reveals that behaviour of the petitioner during his stay in jail for approximately three years was found good and satisfactory and there was no complaint, if any, against him, but prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of parole has been merely rejected on the ground that District Magistrate as well as Superintendent of Police area concerned had not recommended his

¶71

¶72

case on the ground that petitioner is accused of heinous crime and in the event of his being enlarged on parole, he may again indulge in these activities.

¶73

As has been observed hereinabove and held by Hon'ble Apex, while considering the prayer made on behalf of the accused for parole, Courts are not to be swayed by the nature or gravity of offence committed by the convict, rather such prayer is required to be decided taking note of various judgments, as has been culled out in para 37 of the judgment, reproduced hereinabove. Moreover, in the case at hand, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that a person convicted for his having committee serious crime is not entitled to be considered for parole, rather in that situation, very purpose of taking ground repot from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, is to ascertain whether in the event of release on parole, there exists a reasonable likelihood of the prisoner indulging in criminal activities again. In the present case, District Magistrate as well as Superintendent of Police, while objecting the parole of the petitioner, has failed to assign any cogent reason, which may justify their apprehension that in the event of grant of his release on parole, petitioner would again indulge in the illegal trade of narcotics. No doubt, petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment on account of possessing narcotic

¶74

¶75

substances, but that does not mean that in the event of his being enlarged on parole, he would again indulge in these activities, especially when there is nothing to suggests that prior to registration of present case, petitioner was involved in any such offences. Once for his having done illegal activity, petitioner has been convicted by the competent court of law, coupled with the fact that there is no other case against him under the act, prayer made on his behalf for parole could not have been rejected on the ground that in the event of his being enlarged on parole, he will again indulge in these activities again. There is every possibility that after being convicted under NDPS Act, petitioner would mend his ways and after his having completed period of sentence, he would come back to mainstream, but in case aforesaid grounds sought to be raised at the behest of District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are accepted and petitioner is not granted benefit of parole, there is every likelihood of his becoming harden criminal because in that situation, he will have no chance to return back to the mainstream.

¶76

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 07.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 23.07.2025 ( Annexures P-2 to P-4) are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for 42 days subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with

¶77

¶78

two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Jail with an undertaking to maintain good conduct during the period of parole and to surrender before the Superintendent Jail after the expiry of the period of parole. The Probation Officer is also directed to maintain a close watch on the activities of the petitioner and to report any deviation from the direction issued by the Court.

¶79

The Superintendent Jail is free to impose any other suitable condition at the time of the release of the petitioner.

¶80

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶81

March 20,2026 (shankar)

Ravi Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. the 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

Nikhil Thakur Vs State of Hp

Lekh Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ashish Kumar Vs State of Hp

Vikram Singh Vs Ranjeet Singh and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Hp

Kamlesh Chand Vs State of Hp and Anr.