High Court sets aside rejection of parole to NDPS convict, reiterates that parole is a reformative measure and cannot be denied on vague assumptions without cogent material.
Shimla: 11 April 2025
In a significant judgment reinforcing the reformative philosophy of criminal justice, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a mere apprehension that a convict may abscond is insufficient to deny parole. The Court observed that parole serves the larger objective of rehabilitation and maintaining family and social ties, and authorities must base any denial on cogent material demonstrating a threat to public order or the security of the State.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was convicted under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh by the Special Judge-II, Kullu, on 11 October 2023. By the time of filing the petition, he had already undergone more than two years and seven months of imprisonment and had not previously availed parole. He sought temporary release for 28 days to meet his aged parents, wife, and three-year-old daughter, who were unable to visit him due to financial hardship and the long distance between Alwar (Rajasthan) and Nahan Jail (Himachal Pradesh).
Despite his application, the Director General of Prisons rejected the request after relying upon reports from the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Alwar, expressing a possibility that the petitioner might not surrender after parole.
Court’s Observations
The High Court found the rejection order legally unsustainable and held that the authorities had failed to comply with the statutory requirements prescribed under the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and the corresponding Rules.
The Court observed that the District Magistrate had failed to independently assess whether the petitioner’s release would actually endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order, which are the only statutory grounds for refusing parole under Section 6 of the Act. Instead, the authorities merely relied on speculative apprehensions.
The Bench emphasized that: “A mere bald averment in the reports cannot be made the basis for disentitling the petitioner-convict of the benefit of parole.”
It further observed that denying parole solely because of the nature of the conviction defeats the very object of parole, which is intended to facilitate reformation, rehabilitation, and preservation of family ties.
Issue
Whether parole can be denied solely on the basis of a police report expressing an apprehension that the convict may abscond, without any material showing that his release would endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order.
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order dated 18 March 2025, and directed the authorities to release the petitioner on 28 days’ parole, subject to strict conditions.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that:
- Parole is a reformative measure intended to maintain family and social ties.
- A mere apprehension that a convict may abscond cannot justify refusal of parole.
- Authorities must independently assess whether release would threaten the security of the State or maintenance of public order, as required by Section 6 of the 1968 Act.
- Rejection based on vague police reports without supporting material is arbitrary and unsustainable.
Case Details:
| Case: | Kashish Gulyani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others |
| Court: | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Neutral Citation: | 2025:HHC:10797 |
| Case No.: | CWP No. 2609 of 2025 |
| Date of Decision: | 11 April 2025 |
| Bench: | Justice G. S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Counsel for the petitioner | Ld. Adv. Karan Kapoor |
The Archives India