Person Convicted Of Heinous Crime Need Not Be Treated As Hardened Criminal: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Parole To A Prisoner

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that individuals convicted of heinous crimes should not automatically be labelled as hardened criminals.

The Court granted parole to an Individual for attending a shradh ceremony. The Court recognized reformation as a crucial objective that justifies granting short periods of parole, even to life convicts.

The Court further noted that such periods allow individuals the opportunities to address personal and family issues while maintaining social connections with family and friends.

“As regards the petitioner being convicted of a heinous crime, it only needs to be reiterated that there is no presumption that a person who is convicted of a serious or heinous crime is to be ipso facto treated as hardened criminal. Hardened criminal would be a person for whom it has become habit or way of life and such a person would necessarily tend to commit crime again and again”, the Bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed.  

Advocate George appeared for the Petitioner and Senior Additional Advocate Generals I. N. Mehta and Y. W. Chauhan appeared for the State.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions against the concerned authorities, especially the Second Respondent to grant parole for a specified 28-day period by the rules outlined in the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Act).

The court noted a minor discrepancy in the Petitioner's submission regarding the date of the ceremony but observed that there were no adverse reports from the Panchayat or the complainant. The Court observed that there was no evidence suggesting that the Petitioner if granted bail, would not comply with parole conditions. The Court emphasized that being convicted of a serious crime does not automatically classify one as a hardened criminal, especially if it's an isolated offence. The Court noted the importance of considering parole as an opportunity for convicts to address personal issues, maintain family ties, and reintegrate with society, emphasizing redemption and rehabilitation during imprisonment for the benefit of society.

“The theory of criminology, which is largely accepted, underlines that the main objectives which a State intends to achieve by punishing the culprit are: deterrence, prevention, retribution and reformation. When we recognise reformation as one of the objectives, it provides justification for letting of even the life convicts for short periods, on parole, in order to afford opportunities to such convicts not only to solve their personal and family problems but also to maintain their links with the society”, the Bench noted.

Furthermore, the Bench noted the State's objectives in punishing offenders include deterrence, prevention, retribution, and reformation. The Bench recognized reformation as a crucial goal that justifies granting parole, even to life convicts, for short periods. This allows opportunities for convicts to address personal and family issues, maintain social ties, and experience moments of fresh air. These measures, in alignment with other rehabilitation efforts, contribute significantly to the redemption and rehabilitation of prisoners, ultimately serving the greater good of society and being in the public interest, the Bench added.

The Court added, “Convicts too must breathe fresh air for at least some time provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens. Thus, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for good of societies must receive due weightage while they are undergoing sentence of imprisonment”.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and granted parole to the Petitioner.

Cause Title: Sewak Ram @ Sanjeev v State of H. P. & Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment