Police, Panchayat Objections No Ground to Deny Parole: HP HC

Police, Panchayat Objections No Ground to Refuse Parole: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants NDPS Convict 42 Days

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered the release on parole for 42 days of a man serving 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, after the authorities refused parole on objections from the local police and Gram Panchayat and a fear that he would abscond to Nepal (paras 2-3, 17). Such objections, and the heinous nature of an offence, cannot by themselves justify refusal (paras 10, 14, 16).

Key holdings

Parole keeps family and social ties alive; good conduct in jail supports it (paras 8, 12).

Rule 3(2) allows opposition only on security-of-State or public-order grounds (para 9).

The heinous nature of an offence is not, by itself, a relevant ground to refuse parole (paras 10-11).

Police or Gram Panchayat objections are no ground to deny parole (paras 14, 16).

The fear of absconding to Nepal failed after an earlier parole with no allegation of late surrender (para 13).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner was convicted under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 (para 2). This Court had released him on parole in CWP No. 4864 of 2025, decided on 12.09.2025 (para 13). He applied for parole again on 07.07.2026 to meet his wife and two daughters (paras 2-3). According to the State's instructions, he had served 6 years, 8 months and 17 days by 28.08.2026; the District Magistrate did not recommend release because the local Panchayat and police objected; he is a resident of Nepal and would abscond; and the competent authority rejected the application on 17.09.2026 (para 3).

Court's Findings

Justice Rakesh Kainthla relied on Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, where the Supreme Court described parole as a chance to keep family and social ties and held that a serious conviction alone does not make a hardened criminal (para 8). Rule 3(2) of the Prisoners Rules asks the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police only whether the prisoner is dangerous to the security of the State or prejudicial to public order (para 9). Following Shor (Supreme Court) and Harbhajan Singh (this Court), the heinous nature of the offence was held not to be a relevant consideration (paras 10-11). The custody certificate recorded the petitioner's conduct as satisfactory, so he was entitled to parole (para 12). The fear that he would abscond to Nepal had no basis: he had been on parole before, and the instructions did not say he failed to surrender in time (para 13). Relying on Arun Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, the Court held that police or Gram Panchayat objections cannot be a ground to deny parole; the authority must apply an independent mind, and there was no finding that release would endanger the security of the State or law and order (paras 14-16).

Legal Principle

Under Rule 3(2) of the Prisoners Rules, parole may be opposed on two grounds: danger to the security of the State or prejudice to public order. The heinous nature of the offence, or objections from the police or Gram Panchayat, cannot by themselves justify refusal; the competent authority must apply an independent mind (paras 9-10, 14, 16).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Parole refusals for NDPS convicts often rest on the gravity of the offence and local objections; this ruling treats neither as enough: Rule 3(2) asks only whether the prisoner is a danger to the security of the State or to public order (para 9), a heinous offence is not by itself a relevant ground (para 10), and police or Gram Panchayat objections cannot replace the authority's independent decision (paras 14, 16). For a resident of Nepal, an earlier parole with no allegation of late surrender answered the fear of absconding (para 13). The Supreme Court held in Dadu @ Tulsidas that Section 32A of the NDPS Act does not bar parole; this order shows how such an application is weighed.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC 55: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 390: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1092
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 8
Relied on for the purpose of parole: a chance to maintain family and social ties for a convict of good conduct who shows a tendency to reform, refused to those likely to reoffend; a serious conviction alone does not make a hardened criminal (para 8, extracting paras 10-25).
Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab 1988 SCC OnLine P&H 638: ILR (1989) 1 P&H 251
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9
Relied on (Punjab and Haryana High Court) for the meaning of security of the State and public order as the grounds for refusing temporary release, after holding that Rule 3(2) of the Prisoners Rules provides only two grounds for opposing parole (para 9).
Shor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (05.08.2020-SCOrder): MANU/SCOR/34434/2020
Applied Discussed at ¶ 10
Applied to hold that parole cannot be rejected on the ground that the crime is heinous, so the State's objection on the nature of the offence was not a relevant consideration (para 10).

View all precedents (6)

Harbhajan Singh v. State of H.P. 2019 SCC OnLine HP 3599
Applied Discussed at ¶ 11
Applied: the nature of the offence cannot be a ground to deny parole where the prisoner's conduct shows a tendency to reform; rejection must rest on danger to the security of the State or public order (para 11).
Arun Kumar vs. State CWP no 4962 of 2020, decided on 04.06.2021
Applied Discussed at ¶ 14
Applied to hold that a parole application cannot be rejected on the objection of the victim or the Gram Panchayat, so the authority's reliance on reports based on such objections was not a relevant consideration (para 14).
Rakesh Kumar vs State of HP 2024 CRI. L. J. 368
Applied Discussed at ¶ 15
Applied: an objection by the victim or relatives cannot be the sole basis for refusing parole; with paras 14 and 16, police or Gram Panchayat objections were held no ground to deny parole (para 15).