VISHAL BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Vishal Bansal, challenging order dtd. 17/4/2021 (Annexure P-3), whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of parole has been rejected by the Director General, Prison and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) It is contended that the petitioner was arrayed as accused in case FIR No. 26/2016, dtd. 26/3/2016, registered with Police Station Gagret, Distt. Una, for the offences under Ss. 302, 392, 341, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr. Pankaj Sawant, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argues that the petitioner has a family comprised of his old aged mother, wife and two minor daughters. He further argues that the wife of the petitioner has also filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce against the petitioner due to his inability to maintain her and their children. The petitioner wants to maintain and develop good relationship with his wife and make arrangements for the maintenance of his wife and children. He also wants to look after his old aged mother. For all these reasons, he had submitted application dtd. 27/8/2020 for grant of parole through proper channel. Respondent No. 4-the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, (HP) had duly recommended his case for release on parole. But the same has been mechanically rejected by respondent No. 2-the Director General, Prison Correctional Services Officer at Shimla. The District Magistrate in his report has stated that during verification, the statement of concerned Pradhan NAC Gagret namely Kiran Bala, W/o Sh. Shyam Verma, Up Pradhan NAC Gagret, mother of life convict have been recorded. He has recommended against release of the petitioner on parole as the son of the deceased had raised objection against release of the petitioner on parole and expressed the apprehension that if the petitioner is released on parole, he may abscond. It is contended that there is no justification for such apprehension, particularly when the Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, in Columns No. 13 and 17 of his report (Annexure P-5) has categorically recorded that the conduct of the petitioner in jail has throughout been satisfactory and there is no pending case against him. It is denied that the petitioner was absconding during trial. In fact, he had availed his right to apply for anticipatory bail upto the Supreme Court and was eventually allowed to surrender before this Court.