1   ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

SHIMLA

CWP No.8514 of 2026

Reserved on 15.09.2026

Decided on 16.09.2026

Uploaded on : 16.09.2026

Sulakhan Singh …Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondent

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the Petitioner :Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Legal

Aid Counsel.

For the Respondents :Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional

Advocate General,

__________________________________________________________

Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Sulakhan Singh has invoked the extra ordinary writ

jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

(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-3, dated

03.02.2026, in the interest of justice and fair play;

(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 28 days to meet with

family member and to provide the required

1

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

2   ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

financial support, in the facts and circumstances

of the present case.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he came

to be convicted for having committed offences punishable

under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘Act’), vide FIR No.99 of 2023. Vide judgment dated

06.01.2025, the petitioner had been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only).

3. The petitioner had applied for grant of parole for

a period of 28 days’ to meet his family members, consisting

of his wife and two children. It is further averred that they

do not have any source of income and were unable to

cultivate even the land. The copy of application has been

annexed along with the petition, as Annexure P-2.

4. The respondents/State based on the report of the

District Magistrate, Jammu has rejected the application.

The report of the District Magistrate, Jammu was further

based on the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent

of Police, Jammu. The recommendation of the Senior

3   ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

Superintendent of Police, Jammu were totally baseless and

had been made purely on the basis of the assumption and

presumption. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu

had also raised an objection that the petitioner was already

required in case FIR No.116 of 2021, which had been

registered against the petitioner, under Sections 447, 506

and 34 of IPC, in Police Station R.S. Pura. However, the

petitioner had already been enlarged on bail in the said FIR.

His application for parole however, came to be rejected on

03.02.2026, (Annexure P-3).

5. While impugning the action of the

respondents/State, it is further the contention of the

petitioner that not only is the act of the State in violation

of the legal rights of the petitioner enshrined under the

Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary

Release) Act, 1968, but the same has been done

without any application of mind, oblivious of the fact that

the local inhabitants of the locality, where his family

resides had no objection, in case, the petitioner is

released on parole. The conduct of the petitioner

during his incarceration in the jail was also found

4   ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

to have been above the board. There was nothing on record

to remotely suggest that his release would endanger the

security of the State or hinder the maintenance of public

order. The petitioner belongs to a very poor family and his

family was totally dependent upon him and therefore, his

right to life and personal liberty was being violated, which

was against the constitutional of mandate. A prayer has,

thus, been made to allow his request for parole.

6. The respondents/State while, contesting the

petition has, inter-alia, made preliminary submissions that

the grant of parole is a privilege and not a matter of right of

a convict. Section 3 of the Act specifically provides that the

convict is entitled to be released on parole subject to the

satisfaction of the Competent Authority.

7. On merits, it was not disputed that the petitioner

had applied for 28 days’ parole on 07.11.2025 to meet his

family.

8. According to the respondents/State, the request

of the petitioner had been forwarded to the District

Magistrate, Jammu for the recommendation/verification

report, as per requirements of the Act. However, the case of

5   ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

the petitioner had not been recommended by the District

Magistrate, Jammu, vide his letter dated 21.01.2026.

Apparently, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu

had objected to the release of the petitioner on parole, as it

was likely to adversely affect the locality. The Senior

Superintendent of Police, Jammu had also expressed the

apprehension that his release may entail the involvement of

the petitioner in criminal/drug related activities. The

Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu had also reported

that the custody of the petitioner was also required in case

FIR No.116/2021, registered under Sections 447, 506 and

34 of IPC, at Police Station R.S Pura.

9. Keeping in view the recommendation made by

the District Authorities, Jammu the parole case of the

petitioner was rejected.

10. The petitioner was further stated to have been

lodged in Lala Lajpat Rai, District and Open Air

Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.,

and was undergoing rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

The petitioner was stated to have already undergone a

sentence of 3 years and 17 days, as on 21.05.2026. The

6   ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

conduct of the petitioner inside the jail, however, was

reported to have been found satisfactory. The other

allegations in the petition have also been controverted by

the respondents/State. The respondents/State thus, prayed

for the dismissal of the writ petition.

11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the case file minutely.

12. As per the custody certificate on record, the

petitioner has undergone 3 years and 17 days of sentence

till 21.05.2026.

13. The application for parole submitted by the

petitioner on 07.11.2025 had been forwarded to the District

Magistrate, Jammu, who on the basis of the report of the

Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu had strongly

recommended that the petitioner may not be released on

parole. The recommendation of the District Magistrate,

Jammu, which has been annexed by the

respondents/State, as Annexure R-2/3 shows that the S.P.

City South, Jammu had opined that the local populace of

Model Town, Gangyal near Digiana Asnram, Jammu, where

the family of the convict prisoner is residing, for the last

7   ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

two-three years, has not raised any objection, if the convict

is released on parole. However, it seems that the S.P.

Headquarters, Jammu had opined that the release of the

petitioner on parole may adversely affect the locality, as

there was apprehension that the petitioner could be

involved in criminal/drugs related activities. Besides this

the custody of the convict/prisoner was also required in

case FIR No.116/2021, registered under Sections 447, 506

and 34 of IPC, at Police Station R.S. Pura.

14. It has however been specifically averred by the

petitioner that he had already been enlarged on bail in case

FIR No.116/2021. The respondents/State had not denied

the said factum. The petitioner having been enlarged on

bail, the opinion of the S.P. Headquarters, Jammu thus,

cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the said case was not

registered in respect of any offence having been committed

under the provisions of the Act. The apprehension of the

S.P. Headquarters, Jammu that the petitioner may be

involved in drug related activities, on his release is also

thus, misconceived. There is nothing on record to remotely

suggest that any other FIR, under the Act stands registered

8   ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

against the petitioner, either in Jammu and Kashmir or in

Himachal Pradesh.

15. As per the reply, the conduct of the petitioner

was found to be satisfactory even inside the jail. A period of

more than three years has already elapsed and the

petitioner has not been granted any parole or furlough

since then. As per the report of the S.P. City Jammu, the

local population of the area, where the family of the convict

resides has no objection, if he is released on parole.

16. The provisions of Section 3(a) provides for a

temporary release of the prisoner for reasons recorded

therein. In fact, after a convict has undergone imprisonment

for a period of 3 years, he is also entitled to a temporary

release on furlough, as per the provisions of Section 4 of the

Act. If not under Section 3, the petitioner was, at least,

entitled to a furlough under Section 4 of the H.P. Good

Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, as there

was nothing on record to remotely suggest that the petitioner

was a habitual offender or had committed any acts of robbery,

dacoity or such other offences, as the government by

notification has specified, under Section 4 of the Act (ibid).

9   ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

17. 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. The relevant paras-

of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

“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 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 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.

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

afford to them 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

10 

 ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

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.

19. 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 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.

20. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for

grant of furlough or parole. Obviously, society must

isolate those who show patterns of preying upon

victims. Yet administrators ought to encourage those

offenders who demonstrate a commitment to

reconcile with society and whose behaviour shows

that aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Thus,

parole program should be used as a tool to shape

such adjustments.

21. To sum up, in introducing penal reforms, the

State that runs the administration on behalf of the

society and for the benefit of the society at large

cannot be unmindful of safeguarding the legitimate

rights of the citizens in regard to their security in the

matters of life and liberty. It is for this reason that in

introducing such reforms, the authorities cannot be

oblivious of the obligation to the society to render it

immune from those who are prone to criminal

11 

 ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

tendencies and have proved their susceptibility to

indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty

(by a Court) of having perpetrated a criminal act. One

of the discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of

imprisonment is to render the society immune from

the criminal for a specified period. It is, therefore,

understandable that while meting out humane

treatment to the convicts, care has to be taken to

ensure that kindness to the convicts does not result

in cruelty to the society. Naturally enough, the

authorities would be anxious to ensure that the

convict who is released on furlough does not seize

the opportunity to commit another crime when he is

at large for the time-being under the furlough leave

granted to him by way of a measure of penal reform.

22. Another vital aspect that needs to be discussed

is as to whether there can be any presumption that a

person who is convicted of serious or heinous crime

is to be, ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal.

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. Obviously, 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. In his case consideration should

be as to whether he is showing the signs to reform

himself and become a good citizen or there are

circumstances which would indicate that he has a

tendency to commit the crime again or that he would

be a threat to the society. Mere nature of the offence

committed by him should not be a factor to deny the

parole outrightly. Wherever a person convicted has

suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be

granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature

of offence for which he was sentenced. We may

hasten to put a rider here, viz. in those cases where

a person has been convicted for committing a serious

office, the competent authority, while examining such

cases, can be well advised to have stricter

standards in mind while judging their cases on the

parameters of god conduct, habitual offender or

while judging whether he could be considered highly

dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and

tranquility etc.

23. There can be no cavil in saying that a society

that believes in the worth of the individuals can have

12 

 ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

the quality of its belief judged, at least in part, by the

quality of its prisons and services and recourse

made available to the prisoners. Being in a civilized

society organized with law and a system as such, it

is essential to ensure for every citizen a reasonably

dignified life. If a person commits any crime, it does

not mean that by committing a crime, he ceases to be

a human being and that he can be deprived of those

aspects of life which constitute human dignity. For a

prisoner all fundamental rights are an enforceable

reality, though restricted by the fact of imprisonment.

{See – Sunil Batra (II) v. State (UT of Delhi) (1980) 3

SCC 488 , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1

SCC 248 and Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent

Central Jai, Tihar, New Delhi, (1978) 4 SCC 104.

24. It is also to be kept in mind that by the time an

application for parole is moved by a prisoner, he

would have spent some time in the jail. During this

period, various reformatory methods must have been

applied. We can take judicial note of this fact, having

regard to such reformation facilities available in

modern jails. One would know by this time as to

whether there is a habit of relapsing into crime in

spite of having administered correctional treatment.

This habit known as “recidivism” reflects the fact

that the correctional therapy has not brought in the

mind of the criminal. It also shows that criminal is

hardcore who is beyond correctional therapy. If the

correctional therapy has not made in itself, in a

particular case, such a case can be rejected on the

aforesaid ground i.e. on its merits.”

(self emphasis supplied)

18. Having considered, the facts and circumstances

of the present case in light of Asfaq’s case discussed

herein-above (supra), it is crystal clear that the

observations of the S.P. Headquarters Jammu are totally

misplaced and misconceived. Admittedly, the local

populace where the family of the convict resides has no

13 

 ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

objection and his conduct during incarceration has also

been found to be satisfactory through out. No other case

under the NDPS Act, is found to have been registered

against the petitioner. The petitioner even otherwise, was

at least, entitled to a furlough under Section 4 of H.P. Good

Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, affording

him sufficient opportunity to maintain family and social-

ties. There is nothing on record to remotely suggest that

the petitioner has any tendency to commit the same crime

again, at least, there is nothing on record placed by the

respondents/State in this behalf.

19. It is by now trite that prisoners too retain their

fundamental rights of life and humanity, dignity, under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which would entail

that incarceration only limits their personal liberties, but it

certainly will not erase their basic human rights. Thus,

meeting his family and having a whiff of fresh air, albeit for

small periods, that is on temporary release or furlough

would be an integral part for right to life enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The fundamental

right of the petitioner from seeing or visiting his family for

14 

 ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

making provisions for their well being and maintenance

cannot be taken away, except in accordance with law.

20 There being no plausible reasons visible in the

recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Jammu as

has been discussed, in detail herein-above.

21. For all the reasons detailed herein-above, the

order passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu strongly

objecting to the release of the petitioner thus, cannot be

sustained in the eyes of law. As a sequel, the same is liable

to be quashed and set-aside. It is ordered accordingly.

Consequently the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on

parole/furlough for a period of three weeks.

22. As a sequel, the petition is allowed in the

following terms:-

(i) Order, dated 3

rd

February, 2026, rejecting the

request of the petitioner for parole, is quashed

and set-aside;

(ii) Respondents are directed to extend the

concession of parole/furlough to the petitioner,

for a period of three weeks, on his furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with

two sureties in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of Superintendent of Jail, Lala

Lajpat Rai District & Open Air Correctional

Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.;

(iii) It is made clear that the petitioner shall

surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Lala

Lajpat Rai District & Open Air Correctional

15 

 ( 2026:HHC:39531 )

Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, 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 him, in accordance with law;

(iv) Violation of any of the above conditions shall

be treated as a negative factor for consideration

of similar prayer, in the future.

23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

also stand disposed of, accordingly.

24. Registry to communicate this order to the

Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District & Open Air

Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., for

compliance.

(Chirag Bhanu Singh)

Judge

16

th

September, 2026

(Subhash Sharma)