Mere Registration Of FIR Can’t Be Made Basis To Decline Parole: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking a declaration that the act, conduct and orders of the respondents, whereby the case of the petitioner for grant of parole was rejected, were illegal, arbitrary and against the mandate of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act & Rules. The petitioner sought the quashing of the same.

The Single Bench of Justice Virender Singh held, “As regards the registration of FIR against the petitioner, while on parole, mere registration of the FIR cannot be made basis to decline parole to the petitioner, as, the prisoners should be allowed to maintain their family and social ties. They should also be given an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society.”

Legal Aid Counsel Lalit K. Sehgal represented the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Varun Chandel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was convicted by the Court of Special Judge for the offences, punishable under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 6 & 14 (3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Sections 66-E and 67-B of the Information Technology Act (IT Act). It was the Petitioner’s case that while on parole, a scuffle took place, and though the petitioner was innocent, he came to know that based on a twisted fact, an FIR came to be registered against him. The petitioner was on bail in the said FIR. The petitioner applied for a grant of parole for a period of 42 days for agricultural purposes, but the same was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment in Asfaq versus State of Rajasthan (2017) wherein the primary purpose of releasing the convict on parole has elaborately been discussed. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the grounds upon which the prayer of the petitioner was declined by the respondents were the report made by the District Magistrate, Kangra, at Dharamshala. The said recommendation was made on the ground that the victim’s mother had objected to the relief of parole, apprehending a threat to them and registration of another FIR against the petitioner.

It was noticed that, as per the report made by ADM, Kangra at Dharamshala, an FIR was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 IPC against the petitioner, during his past parole. The petitioner, in the writ petition, had termed the said case as false and frivolous. “The final result of the said cannot be anticipated, as such, the same cannot be taken to be a negative factor, for considering the relief, for which, the present petition has been filed”, it said.

The Bench also referred to the decision in Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar versus State of Gujarat & Ors. (2024) wherein it has been held that every case of breach cannot invite cancellation of the order of remission. The Bench thus held that prisoners should also be given an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems to enable them to maintain their links with society.

The Bench thus allowed the petition and quashed the rejection order.

Cause Title: Sachin Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:31339)

Appearance

Petitioner: Legal Aid Counsel Lalit K. Sehgal

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Varun Chandel, Deputy Advocates General Rohit Sharma, Ranjna Patial

Click here to read/download Order