4 min readNew DelhiAug 13, 2026 10:40 AM IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted four weeks’ parole to a life convict in a dacoity-murder case, holding that parole can’t be denied on account of his Nepalese citizenship when his family had lived in Uttarakhand for over three decades. The court also cited his satisfactory jail conduct and the lack of material showing a threat to state security or public order.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla was hearing a petition challenging a June 23 order rejecting the prisoner’s parole application. “The parole could not have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a citizen of Nepal when his family members are residing at Nanital for 30-35 years,” the court said on August 12.
Setting aside the earlier order, it directed that the prisoner be released on parole for four weeks, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh and two surety bonds of the same amount.
On December 30, 2021, the man was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in a 2013 case registered at Bagga Police Station in Himachal Pradesh. He was found guilty under sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 396 (dacoity with murder) of the Indian Penal Code, with the sentences running concurrently, according to the order which did not mention further details of the offence.
Why parole was rejected
The prisoner sought parole to meet his family, but the authorities concerned rejected his plea, citing his Nepalese citizenship and the possibility of him fleeing to Nepal. The state opposed the parole citing the seriousness of the offence and the risk of him fleeing.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that the prisoner’s jail conduct had been satisfactory.
His counsel argued that his family had lived in Nainital for 30-35 years and owned property there, relying on an earlier division bench ruling in Arjun v State of HP & others.
The high court referred to Rule 3(2) of the Prisoners Rules and Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, which permit denial of parole where release threatens State security or public order. It found no “cogent and convincing material” to show either risk in this case.
Story continues below this ad
Relying on its earlier ruling in Arjun v State of HP, the court held that Nepalese citizenship alone could not justify denial of parole. It also noted the prisoner’s family ties in Nainital and Himachal Pradesh, including his parents’ house and his father’s property. “The denial of parole indefinitely when, nothing adverse exists will frustrate and defeat the very object of granting parole,” the court said.
‘Satisfactory jail conduct’
The high court noted that the prisoner’s jail conduct had been satisfactory. It held that where nothing adverse exists, indefinite denial of parole would defeat its purpose.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Asfaq v State of Rajasthan, the court said parole helps prisoners maintain family and social ties as part of a reformative approach. It also noted that the seriousness of the offence alone cannot justify denial of parole, though public safety and the risk of reoffending remain relevant.
Allowing the petition, the high court set aside the June 23, 2026 order and granted four weeks’ parole on a Rs 1 lakh personal bond and two surety bonds of the same amount. The prisoner must maintain good conduct and surrender after four weeks, while the probation officer will monitor his activities.
Story continues below this ad
“The respondents have not placed on record any cogent and convincing material justifying that the temporary release of the petitioner on parole would infringe the mandate of Section 6 of the Act,” the court said. The jail superintendent may, however, impose additional suitable conditions at the time of the man’s release on parole.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that the prisoner’s jail conduct had been satisfactory.