Prisoner's Parole Can't Be Denied Solely Because Six Months Haven't Elapsed Since Previous Release: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prisoner's request for parole cannot be rejected solely because six months have not elapsed since the completion of an earlier parole. The Court observed that the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 does not prescribe any such embargo, and therefore, the restriction contained in Paragraph 19.12 of the Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021 cannot curtail a prisoner's statutory entitlement to seek parole. Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“Once the claim of a convict for parole originates and is governed by the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act and Rules and the Statute and Rules framed thereunder do not place any embargo or restriction that the second parole cannot be considered/granted before expiry of 6 months period”Background:The petitioner, Deep Ram, is serving a 20-year sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He and his wife were convicted in the same case and are currently lodged in Model Central Jail, Kanda. Having already undergone over nine years of imprisonment, the petitioner had been granted parole on eight previous occasions and had returned to prison on every occasion without violating any condition. The petitioner sought parole for 28 days to assist his wife, who was scheduled to undergo ear surgery at Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla. However, the prison authorities rejected his request solely on the ground that six months had not passed since his previous parole, relying on Paragraph 19.12 of the Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the rejection order and a direction for his release on parole. The Court held that the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 does not prohibit a convict from applying for parole before the expiry of six months from the previous parole. Therefore, the six-month restriction contained in Paragraph 19.12 of the Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021 cannot override the statutory framework.The Court reiterated that the Prison Manual is subordinate to the parent legislation and cannot introduce conditions that are inconsistent with or contrary to the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted parole on eight earlier occasions, had surrendered within time every time, and there was no adverse report regarding his conduct. In such circumstances, the authorities had no justification to reject his application solely because six months had not elapsed.The Court found that the petitioner's application had not even been forwarded to the District Magistrate for a report under Section 6 of the Act. Instead, it was rejected solely on the basis of the Prison Manual, making the decision legally unsustainable.Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's parole application. Case Name: Deep Ram v/s State of H.P. & othersCase No.: CWP No.8916 of 2026Date of Decision: 15.06.2026Click Here To Read/Download Order

Prisoner's Parole Can't Be Denied Solely Because Six Months Haven't Elapsed Since Previous Release: Himachal Pradesh High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Prisoner's Parole Can't Be Denied Solely Because Six Months Haven't Elapsed Since Previous Release: Himachal Pradesh High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers