BALDEV Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dtd. 11/8/2025 (Annexure P-3) and releasing the petitioner on parole for 28 days. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 16 years, pay a fine of ?2,80,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year in FIR No. 16 of 2023, dtd. 13/1/2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 20 and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, HP. The petitioner has completed more than two years, eight months and seventeen days in jail. He filed an application for parole on 24/3/2025 to meet his family members.

(2.) The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted by learned Special Judge, (Family Court), Mandi, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sixteen years, pay a fine of ?2,80,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. The petitioner was undergoing imprisonment at Model Central Jail, 2026:HHC:9157 Nahan, HP. The petitioner has undergone two years nine months and four-day substantive sentence as on 12/12/2025. His conduct inside the Jail was satisfactory. He filed an application for parole, which was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Mandi, HP, for recommendation/verification. District Magistrate, Mandi, stated of that there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner's family was unable to travel to Nahan to meet him. The reasons for seeking parole were not covered under the H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act). Hence, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority. The grant of parole is a privilege and not a right, and a person can be released on parole after the satisfaction of the competent authority. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.