Parole cannot be denied only on the ground of pending criminal cases unless supported by reasonable, specific grounds; mere registration of other FIRs or unfounded apprehensions do not automatically justify rejection. The judgment upholds binding Supreme Court precedent and clarifies procedural fairness, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh and persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/15926/2025 of AKASH SAGAR @ AZAD Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010620992025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; persuasive for other courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Parole, Prisoners’ Rights) |
| Questions of Law | Whether parole can be denied solely on the basis of registration of other criminal cases and apprehensions not supported by specific, reasonable grounds. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that mere registration of other criminal cases or unfounded apprehensions by authorities is not sufficient ground to deny parole. The underlying object of the parole regime is to enable prisoners to maintain family and social ties, and to aid in their reformation and reintegration into society. Authorities must base rejection only on reasonable and justifiable grounds, not on generalised or speculative fears. The court relied on binding Supreme Court precedent and set aside the impugned rejection, granting parole with conditions ensuring public order and compliance. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, convicted under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 120B IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act and serving a 20-year sentence, had already undergone two years imprisonment when he applied for parole to meet his family. Authorities declined parole solely citing other pending criminal cases and apprehensions of possible absconding or further crime. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that parole rejection cannot be based exclusively on pending or registered FIRs; authorities must provide specific and reasonable grounds.
- Unfounded or speculative apprehensions are not a valid legal basis to deny parole.
- Upholds the Supreme Court’s principle that even prisoners convicted for serious offences retain the right to maintain family and social ties, subject to conditions.
- Authority may impose stringent and reasonable conditions to address law and order concerns rather than outright rejection.
- Lawyers may cite this judgment to challenge parole rejections grounded only in the existence of other criminal cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed the object and underlying philosophy of parole, focusing on prisoner rehabilitation, the right to dignity, and maintenance of family and social ties.
- Relied upon Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and others (2017) 15 SCC 55, quoting at length the Supreme Court’s articulation of parole’s humanistic goals and the need to balance public safety with individual reform.
- Analysed authorities’ basis for rejection—pending criminal cases and apprehensions of absconding—and held these are insufficient unless clearly substantiated and specific to the petitioner’s conduct or threat.
- Emphasised that mere registration of FIRs does not prove a “hardened criminal” status.
- Highlighted that unfounded apprehensions can be addressed by stringent, targeted parole conditions, not outright denial.
- Allowed the writ, quashing the rejection and granting parole, subject to strict compliance and conditions ensuring public order and victim safety.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Had applied for parole to meet his family, as allowed under law and precedent.
- Contended that the rejection was made without any justifiable or specific reason.
- Cited his two years of sentence already undergone and absence of past parole violations.
Respondents (State)
- Did not dispute petitioner’s conviction or sentence, nor the fact of the parole application.
- Submitted that District Authorities (Agra) did not recommend parole due to pending criminal cases against the petitioner and apprehension about possibility of absconding and non-surrender.
Factual Background
The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment under several sections of IPC and the POCSO Act. After completing two years in custody, the petitioner applied for 28 days’ parole to meet his family. Authorities rejected his application solely citing pending criminal cases in other districts and unfounded fears of abscondence or repetition of crime, without specific evidence or inquiry.
Statutory Analysis
- The court evaluated the object and application of parole provisions under the relevant Acts and Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Cited Supreme Court precedent interpreting parole as a measure based on reformation and prisoner rights, to be rejected only upon specific, reasonable grounds.
- Reinforced the constitutional guarantee of dignity even during incarceration, referencing Article 21 and related decisions.
Procedural Innovations
- The court expressly allowed the imposition of any additional, just, and reasonable parole conditions as deemed fit by authorities, in addition to standard parole terms, to safeguard public interest and address case-specific risks.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and applies Supreme Court precedent, particularly Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and others (2017) 15 SCC 55.