ORDER : The request made by the petitioner for releasing on parole has been turned down by the respondents constraining him to file the instant petition for grant of the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue the impugned rejection letter dated 19.08.2021 contained in Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant parole to the petitioner, in a time bound manner, as per law laid down therefore.” 2. The petitioner was not released on parole due to non-recommendation of his case by the District Magistrate, Rohtak, District Haryana. Even though, the report is not annexed with the petition, however, a copy thereof has been appended along with the reply and the relevant text thereof reads as under:- “Please refer to letter No.MCJ/NHN/Pri/N/S-04/3682-84 dated 24/05/2021 from the Superintendent Jail, of Model Central Jail, Nahan on the subject cited above. The parole case of the convict got inquired through the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak and Tehsildar, Rohtak. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtak in his report stated that convict is undergoing a sentence of 10 years at Model Central Jail Nahan, District Sirmour (H.P.) in Case FIR No. 19/2016, under Section 20 & 29 of the NDPS Act, Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Besides this, the following cases are registered against him:- 1. Case FIR No. 16 dated 13.01.2013 under Sections 394, 397, 307, 34 IPC at Police Station, Bawana, Delhi. 2. Case FIR No. 198 dated 16.07.2014 under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak. 3. Case FIR No. 152 dated 02.12.2014 under Section 342, 392 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Line Par, Bahadurghar, Jhajjar. 4. Case FIR No. 481 dated 03.12.2014, Police Station Sadar, Bahadurghar, Jhajjar. The convict has a joint family including mother and father. The family members of the convict are able to meet him in Central Jail for interview. The convict may disturb the peace and tranquility in the locality, if released on parole and there is apprehension that he can jump parole. The parole of the convict is not recommended. The Tehsildar Rohtak has reported that parents of the convict are about 65 years old and brother is about 34 years old and sister is married. There is 7½ acre of land in the name of convict’s father in village Vapur. The parole of the convict is not recommended. The Tehsildar Rohtak has reported that parents of the convict are about 65 years old and brother is about 34 years old and sister is married. There is 7½ acre of land in the name of convict’s father in village Vapur. The convict has no certificate regarding agricultural purpose. The family of the convict has assured that convict will surrender after release on furlough. The convict can be released on furlough. The Superintendent, Model Central Jail Nahan, District Sirmaur (H.P) has recommended the special parole of convict on the directions of High Power Committee. The convict was sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment by the order of Learned Special Judge Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on 27.06.2019. In addition, a case FIR No. 481/2014 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurghar, Jhajjar, under Section 395 of IPC against the convict which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, in which the convict is on bail and a case FIR No. 10/2020 dated 06.01.2020, under Section 174-A IPC which is pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, in which he is also on bail. This is first parole of the convict. The conduct of the convict is good in jail. The convict is eligible for parole. Thus, keeping in view the report of the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak and agreeing with the report, the special parole case of the convict is not recommended. This is submitted for your further necessary action please.” 3. It would be noticed that the report of the District Magistrate is based upon the information as imparted by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak vide letter dated 22.07.2021 and the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “Kindly refer to letter No.2209-10 dated 08.06.2021, on the subject cited above. Subject matter was got verified from the Police Station, Civil Line. During verification, it has come on record that Rahul Deshwal s/o Sh. Jagdish Deshwal is the resident of House No. 254/12, Tilak Nagar, Police Station, Civil Line Shehar, District Rohtak and the convict is undergoing a sentence of 10 years at Model Central Jail Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in Case FIR No. 19/2016, under Section 20 & 29 of the NDPS Act lodged at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Besides this the following cases are against him. Besides this the following cases are against him. Besides this, the following cases are registered against him:- 1. Case FIR No. 16 dated 13.01.2013 under Sections 394, 397, 307, 34 IPC at Police Station, Bawana, Delhi. 2. Case FIR No. 198 dated 16.07.2014 under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak. 3. Case FIR No. 152 dated 02.12.2014 under Section 342, 392 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Line Par, Bahadurghar, Jhajjar. 4. Case FIR No. 481 dated 03.12.2014, Police Station Sadar, Bahadurghar, Jhajjar. Convict wants temporary parole to meet the family members. 3. During inspection, it has been found that convict has a joint family including mother and father. The family members of the convict are able to meet him in Central Jail for interview. The convict may disturb the peace and tranquility in the area, if released on parole and he can jump the parole. 4. Thus, keeping in view the above facts and on the report of the local police, the parole case of the convict is not recommended. The photocopies of the investigation report in the case of the convict are enclosed herewith, for further necessary action please.” 4. It would further be noticed that both the authorities after taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances have not recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of parole because of his antecedents. As borne out from the report, four other criminal cases had been instituted against the petitioner, apart from FIR No. 19/2016 in which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that all the FIRs as mentioned in the reports submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak and District Magistrate, Rohtak, are prior to registration of FIR No. 19/2016 and in all these FIRs, he has already been acquitted and after FIR No. 19/2016, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has indulged in criminal activity. 6. To say the least, the submissions are ill-founded as admittedly the petitioner had been arrested in Case FIR No. 19/2016 and after conviction has been lodged in jail and, being in custody, there was no occasion for him to have indulged in criminal activity and, therefore, the same cannot be an indicator of his good antecedents. 7. 6. To say the least, the submissions are ill-founded as admittedly the petitioner had been arrested in Case FIR No. 19/2016 and after conviction has been lodged in jail and, being in custody, there was no occasion for him to have indulged in criminal activity and, therefore, the same cannot be an indicator of his good antecedents. 7. Further, it would be noticed from various judgments of acquittal appended with the petition that the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 152/2014, dated 02.12.2014, case arising out of FIR No. 688 dated 11.10.2015 and case arising out of FIR No. 198 dated 16.07.2014 was not honourably acquitted, but was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in his favour. 8. It is more than settled that unless it is honourable acquittal, a person cannot claim the benefit of such acquittal in such a case. What is an “honourable acquittal” was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and another vs. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598 , wherein it was held as under:- “Honourable Acquittal 24. The meaning of the expression ‘honourable acquittal’ came up for consideration before this Court in Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541 . In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions ‘honourable acquittal’, ‘acquitted of blame’, ‘fully exonerated’ are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression ‘honourably acquitted’. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.” 9. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression ‘honourably acquitted’. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.” 9. Similar reiteration of law can be found in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others vs. Pradeep Kumar and another (2018) 1 SCC 797 , Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another vs. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 , State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 18 SCC 733 , State of Rajasthan and others vs. Love Kush Meena 2021 (4) Scale 634 and Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar 2021 (9) Scale 713. 10. Thus, what can be taken to be settled from the above conspectus of the legal position is that the mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice for determining the antecedents of an individual, but rather it would depend whether the acquittal is one based on total evidence or a criminal jurisprudence requires the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That parameters having not been met, benefit of doubt was granted to the petitioner which by itself is no indicator of an honourable acquittal. 11. For the reasons stated above and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner to release him on parole, more particularly, taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed along with pending application, if any.