‘May turn hardened criminal’: Himachal Pradesh High Court allows POCSO convict parole to meet family

“There is every possibility that after being convicted under aforesaid provisions of law, petitioner would mend his ways and after his having completed period of sentence, he would come back to mainstream, but in case …petitioner is not granted benefit of parole, there is every likelihood of his becoming hardened criminal because in that situation, he will have no chance to return to the mainstream,” the order on April 24 noted.

On April 24, Justice Sandeep-Sharma granted parole to a man convicted under the POCSO Act.

The court observed that, while considering a parole request, it should not be swayed by the nature and gravity of the offence or the sentence imposed, but should focus on the purposes of granting parole.

Parole entitlement under law: Court

• The petitioner, during his stay in jail for more than three years, was found good and satisfactory, and there was no complaint against him.
• It cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that a person convicted of having committed a serious crime is not entitled to be considered for parole.
• The purpose of taking ground reports from the district magistrate and superintendent of police is to ascertain whether the prisoner, if released, would commit any offence.
• The courts are not to be swayed by the nature or gravity of the offence committed by the convict; such a prayer is required to be decided taking note of the precedents.
• District magistrate and superintendent of police, while objecting to the parole of the petitioner, have failed to assign any cogent reason for not granting parole to the petitioner.
• There is no other case against the petitioner, and the prayer made on his behalf for parole could not have been rejected on the ground that he might engage in these activities again.
• There is every possibility that after the conviction, the petitioner would mend his ways and get back to mainstream society after completing his period of sentence, but rejecting his parole plea might push him to become a hardened criminal.
• In the aforementioned views, the court allowed the plea.

Arguments 

Advocate Karan Kapoor, on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that based on the objection raised by the superintendent of police, the district magistrate did not recommend his case for the grant of parole, due to which his parole was rejected by the authority. 

The counsel representing the state argued that no positive or supportive material was received from the verifying authorities to justify the release of the convict on parole, as he was sentenced for 25 years under Section 376 AB (deals with the stringent punishment for the rape of a female under twelve years of age) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 (address Penetrative Sexual Assault and its punishment) of the POCSO Act. 

It was argued that, as per the report of the concerned district magistrate, the petitioner was a habitual offender of a shrewd type, and there was a high chance that he might abscond after release on parole, and accordingly, the parole was not recommended. 

Besides the aforementioned, the counsel for the state submitted that the grant of parole is a privilege and not a matter of right of a convict, observing that Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, specifically provided that a convict was entitled to release on parole subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority.

During the arguments, Additional Advocate General Rajan Kajol also invited the attention of the court to Section 6 (surrender of the prisoner after the expiry of the temporary release period) of the same Act, which provides that no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if the district magistrate, the government or an officer authorised to report that the convict might endanger the security of the state ot the maintenance of public order. 

POCSO convict applied for parole

• The petitioner was a convict under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and was undergoing sentence for having committed offences punishable under the aforesaid provision of law.
• The petitioner had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years, but since he had already undergone the sentence for more than three years, he applied for parole to meet his family members.
• The petitioner’s prayer was rejected through a communication dated November 7, 2025. Subsequently, he approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, praying for relief.