Court Rules Parole Cannot Be Denied Solely on Foreign Citizenship When Family Has Long-Term Residency; Upholds Reformative Justice Principles
In a significant judgment delivered on August 12, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, set aside the denial of parole to Vicky Rana, a life convict originally a citizen of Nepal. The Court held that parole cannot be refused merely because the prisoner is a foreign national if his family has been residing in India for decades and there is no credible evidence that his release would jeopardize state security or public order.
Vicky Rana, convicted under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 396 (dacoity with murder) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment, had served over 12 years. He applied for parole to meet his family, who have been settled in Nainital, Uttarakhand, for 30 to 35 years. Despite this, the competent authority rejected his parole application on the apprehension that he might abscond to Nepal, citing his foreign citizenship as a risk factor.
The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition, emphasizing that his family ties and residence in India negate the fear of absconding. The District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police reports confirmed the petitioner’s family’s long-term residence and property ownership in Nainital, further supporting his claim.
Justice Kainthla, relying on precedents including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and other authoritative judgments, underscored the fundamental principles underpinning parole laws. Parole is a temporary, conditional release aimed at facilitating convicts’ reformation by allowing them to maintain social and familial bonds. The Court reiterated that parole is not an absolute right but must be decided based on the prisoner's behavior and the risk posed to society.
The judgment elaborated on the distinction between parole and furlough and emphasized the constitutional protection of prisoners' fundamental rights, including the right to live with human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that denying parole solely due to the heinous nature of the crime or foreign nationality was neither justifiable nor in line with the reformative theory of punishment.
The Court also clarified that parole can only be denied on two statutory grounds under the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 — if release endangers state security or public order. The reports in this case did not demonstrate any such threat.
Accordingly, the Court directed that Vicky Rana be granted parole for 28 days subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, maintaining good conduct, and surrendering after parole expiry. The Probation Officer was tasked with monitoring the petitioner during parole.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to balancing the rights and rehabilitation of convicts with public safety and challenges administrative decisions that fail to apply legal provisions judiciously. It also highlights that foreign citizenship alone cannot be a ground for denying parole when family and social ties are established in India.
Bottom Line:
Parole cannot be denied solely on the ground that the convict is a citizen of another country if his family has been residing in India for a long duration and there is no cogent evidence indicating that his release would endanger the security of the state or public order.
Statutory provision(s):
Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 Sections 3, 6; Indian Penal Code Sections 120B, 396; Constitution of India Article 21
Vicky Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2959774
