ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by Vishal Bansal, challenging order dated 17th April, 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, dated 26.03.2016, registered with Police Station Gagret, District Una, for the offences under Sections 302, 392, 341, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further contented that the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by this Court and subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the petitioner surrendered before this Court on 16.06.2016 pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLA (Crl) No. 4371 of 2016 and faced trial. He was eventually convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 201, 341 and 120B of IPC vide judgment dated 20th February, 2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, District Una, H.P. Ever since he surrendered before this Court on 16.06.2016, he is in jail and thus, has completed incarceration of more than 5 years and 4 months. The application of the petitioner for regular parole has been dismissed by the Director General, Prison and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh on 17th April, 2021 on the ground that the District Magistrate has not recommended so. 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 Section 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 dated 27.08.2020 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. For all these reasons, he had submitted application dated 27.08.2020 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. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 663 of 2020, titled as Sajid vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 29th June, 2020, in which case also, parole application of the petitioner seeking parole was rejected on the basis of non-recommendation of the District Magistrate, but later on, he was granted parole on the basis of his incarceration for about seven years and his good conduct in jail, with a rider that his parole would be liable to be cancelled, in case he breaches any of the conditions of the parole and/or creates law and order problems and the same shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of his similar prayers in future. 5. On the other hand, Ms. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, argues that the petitioner did not immediately surrender during investigation and the proceedings under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code for getting him declared as a proclaimed offender had to be initiated. But eventually, he surrendered before this Court on 16th June, 2016. She further argues that as per Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969, the Superintendent of Jail while considering the prayer for parole, shall take into consideration the prisoner’s past criminal history and behavior in the prison since admission as recorded in his case file and the likelihood of his not abusing the concession of parole, if granted. Further, the District Magistrate, while recommending the parole/furlough cases of prisoners will specify whether the prisoner shall be required to furnish the security bond or personal bond or both and while recommending release of the prisoner on his furnishing a personal bond, his family ties and relationships, his reputation, character and monetary conditions and his roots in the community shall also be taken into consideration. She referred to the supplementary affidavit filed on 8th September, 2021 and in particular, referred to the report dated 26.08.2021, of the Superintendent of Police, District Una, for providing antecedents of the petitioner. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The very purpose of grant of parole is to give an opportunity to the convict to look after his family left behind and also to join the mainstream of the society. It is intended to ensure that eventually when he comes out of the jail, he joins the society as a reformed citizen. In order however to decide whether or not he should be granted the facility of parole, conduct of the prisoner during his stay in jail is very much relevant. In the present case, the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, in Columns No. 13 and 17 of his report dated 7th September, 2020 (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 not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in jail for more than 5 years and 4 months. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in jail for more than 5 years and 4 months. Merely because the family of the complainant has raised objections to the temporary release of the petitioner on parole and voiced apprehension of his absconding, the case of the petitioner for grant of parole cannot be rejected. Even otherwise, there is no basis for the assumption that if granted parole, he will abscond. 8. The Supreme Court in case titled as Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2017 (15) SCC 55 , while dealing with this aspect of the matter, has held that provisions of parole and furlough, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Main purpose of such provisions is to afford to them an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with the society. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paras 18 and 22 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant to be extracted herein-below: “(18) The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Main purpose of such provisions is to afford to them an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society. Even citizens of this country have a vested interest in preparing offenders for successful reentry into society. Those who leave prison without strong networks of support, without employment prospects, without a fundamental knowledge of the communities to which they will return, and without resources, stand a significantly higher chance of failure. When offenders revert to criminal activity upon release, they frequently do so because they lack hope of merging into society as accepted citizens. Furloughs or parole can help prepare offenders for success. (22) Another vital aspect that needs to be discussed is as to whether there can be any presumption that a person who is convicted of serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto, treated as a hardened criminal. Hardened criminal would be a person for whom it has become a habit or way of life and such a person would necessarily tend to commit crimes again and again. Hardened criminal would be a person for whom it has become a habit or way of life and such a person would necessarily tend to commit crimes again and again. Obviously, if a person has committed a serious offence for which he is convicted, but at the same time it is also found that it is the only crime he has committed, he cannot be categorised as a hardened criminal. In his case consideration should be as to whether he is showing the signs to reform himself and become a good citizen or there are circumstances which would indicate that he has a tendency to commit the crime again or that he would be a threat to the society. Mere nature of the offence committed by him should not be a factor to deny the parole out rightly. Wherever a person convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of offence for which he was sentenced. We may hasten to put a rider here, viz. in those cases where a person has been convicted for committing a serious office, the competent authority, while examining such cases, can be well advised to have stricter standards in mind while judging their cases on the parameters of good conduct, habitual offender or while judging whether he could be considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility etc.” 9. The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment were reiterated by the Supreme Court in case titled as Mohammad Shamsuddin vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2019) 14 SCC 333 . It is relevant to extract Para-3 of the judgment herein-below: 3. We may at this stage quote the observations of this Court in Para-17 of its judgment in Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan which are: (SCC p. 62) “77. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that amongst the various grounds on which parole can be granted, the most important ground, which stands out, is that a prisoner should be allowed to maintain family and social ties. For this purpose, he has to come out for some time so that he is able to maintain his family and social contact. This reason finds justification in one of the objectives behind sentence and punishment, namely, reformation of the convict. For this purpose, he has to come out for some time so that he is able to maintain his family and social contact. This reason finds justification in one of the objectives behind sentence and punishment, namely, reformation of the convict. 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. Another objective which this theory underlines is that even such convicts have right to breathe fresh air, albeit for (sic short) periods. These gestures on the part of the State, along with other measures, go a long way for redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners. They are ultimately aimed for the good of the society and, therefore, are in public interest.” 10. Even this Court in case titled as Bir Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 1985 Cri. L.J. 1458, in Para-3 has observed that in the absence of an opportunity to watch his conduct outside jail for the reason of his not having been released on parole/furlough is again not a factor which could be legitimately pressed into service on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. There is no reason to assume that if the petitioner is granted the benefit of premature release, he would once again display criminal tendency. Such an assumption overlooks not only that the petitioner is not shown to be a habitual offender but also the reformatory aspect of the penalty procedure as well as the good record of the petitioner during the entire period of his imprisonment. 11. In view of the above deliberation, we are persuaded to allow the present writ petition filed by the petitioner by setting aside the order dated 17th April, 2021 (Annexure P-3) and extending the benefit of parole for a period of 15 days, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, H.P. The petitioner shall surrender before the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, H.P immediately on expiry of 15 days of parole. However, his parole shall be liable to be cancelled, in case the petitioner breaches any of the conditions of the parole order and/or creates law and order problems, which shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of his similar prayers in the future. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.