SUNITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order (Annexure P3) and releasing the petitioner on parole for 28 days.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act by the learned Special Judge, District Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment dtd. 30/12/2023. She was sentenced to undergo 11 years' rigorous imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two years for the commission of the aforesaid offence. The petitioner has completed two years, 10 months and 20 days on the date of the issuance of the custody certificate. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of parole for agricultural purposes on 23/11/2024 under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh (Prisoners Good Conduct) Act (in short 'Prisoners Act'). The application was rejected on the ground that the District Magistrate did not recommend the petitioner's case based on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. The denial of parole to the petitioner is arbitrary and is contrary to the provisions of the Prisoners Act and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioner has a right to meet her relatives and to perform the agricultural operations. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of her release on bail, therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole.

(3.) The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court. She had undergone an actual sentence of 03 years and 18 days as on 25/3/2025. Her conduct was found to be satisfactory. The petitioner applied for parole on 17/7/2024, however, she had not completed one year of imprisonment from the date of her conviction recorded on 30/12/2023; hence, the matter was kept pending. The matter was subsequently considered in the light of the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 2733 of 2024 titled Duni Chand versus State of H.P. and CWP No. 1447 of 2024 titled Meera Devi vs. State of H.P. The petitioner submitted another application for granting 42 days' parole on medical grounds. This application was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police reported that the petitioner was likely to indulge in the commission of a similar crime in case of her release on bail. The District Magistrate did not recommend the case of the petitioner because of the report of the Superintendent of Police; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.