The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the fact that a convict is a citizen of Nepal cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny him parole, particularly when his family has been residing in India for several decades and there are established residential and social ties in the country. The Court observed that a mere apprehension that a foreign national may abscond to his country of citizenship cannot justify rejection of parole when the surrounding circumstances do not support such an apprehension. Justice Rakesh Kainthla also took note of the prisoner's satisfactory conduct during incarceration and emphasised the reformative and rehabilitative purpose of parole. The Court consequently set aside the order rejecting parole and directed the convict's release for four weeks subject to specified conditions.
The judgment arose from a petition filed by Vicky Rana, a life convict in FIR No. 10 of 2013 registered at Police Station Bagga in Himachal Pradesh. Rana challenged an order dated June 23, 2026, by which his application seeking parole had been rejected. He sought temporary release primarily to meet his family members, who have been residing in Nainital, Uttarakhand, for approximately 30 to 35 years. The case was considered by Justice Rakesh Kainthla in CWP No. 11238 of 2026, titled Vicky Rana v. State of H.P. & Ors. The High Court ultimately found that the reasons relied upon by the authorities were insufficient to justify denial of parole.
The State opposed the petitioner's request for temporary release on several grounds. One of the principal objections was that Rana is a citizen of Nepal. According to the State, this circumstance created a possibility that if released from custody, he might leave India and return to Nepal, thereby making it difficult for the authorities to secure his surrender after the expiry of the parole period. The State also relied upon the fact that Rana had been convicted of a heinous offence and was serving a life sentence. On this basis, the authorities argued that granting him parole could create a risk of absconding and therefore his request for temporary release ought not to be accepted.
Rana, however, disputed the suggestion that he would abscond if released. His case was that his family had deep and longstanding connections with India. His parents had constructed a house and purchased property in Nainital, and his wife, minor daughter, father and other relatives were residing in India. According to the material considered by the High Court, the family had been living in Nainital for approximately 30 to 35 years. The petitioner therefore argued that his Nepalese citizenship could not automatically be treated as evidence that he would flee the country or evade the law if granted temporary release.
An important consideration before the High Court was the petitioner's conduct while in custody. The custody certificate placed before the Court recorded that his conduct and behaviour in prison had been satisfactory. This factor assumed significance because parole is not simply a mechanism for permitting a prisoner to leave custody temporarily; it is also connected with the correctional and rehabilitative objectives of the prison system. A prisoner's conduct while incarcerated can therefore be relevant when authorities assess whether temporary release can safely be granted.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla specifically observed that the petitioner's parole application could not have been rejected merely because he was a citizen of Nepal when his family members had been residing in Nainital for decades. The Court's observation directly addressed the principal concern raised by the authorities. Citizenship alone, without additional material establishing a genuine likelihood of absconding or threat to public order, could not automatically become a disqualifying factor for parole.
The High Court also relied upon its earlier decision in Arjun v. State of H.P. In that decision, the Court had held that parole could be refused only on the statutory grounds, particularly where the prisoner's release was likely to endanger the security of the State or prejudice the maintenance of public order. The reference to this precedent indicates that parole decisions cannot be based merely upon generalised assumptions or speculative apprehensions. The authorities must examine whether the statutory grounds for refusing temporary release are actually established in the particular case.
The Court's approach therefore required the State to establish something more than the petitioner's foreign citizenship. The possibility that a Nepalese citizen might return to Nepal is not, standing alone, equivalent to proof that the prisoner would abscond. The Court considered the petitioner's family circumstances and found that his long-established connections in India weakened the apprehension raised by the State. His parents' property and residence in Nainital and the presence of his wife, daughter and other relatives provided concrete social and familial ties within India.
The High Court also emphasised the reformative and rehabilitative purpose of parole. In this regard, it relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan. The principle recognised in that decision is that temporary release can help a prisoner maintain family and social relationships, which are important elements of rehabilitation. Parole therefore cannot be approached solely from the perspective of punishment. The correctional objective of imprisonment also requires consideration of whether maintaining contact with family and society can assist a prisoner in reintegrating into the community.
The reference to rehabilitation was particularly relevant in the present case because the petitioner's request was connected with meeting his family. The Court found that his family had maintained a long-standing presence in India and that his temporary release would enable him to maintain those familial relationships. Such relationships can be important for a prisoner's emotional and social rehabilitation, particularly in the case of a person serving a lengthy sentence.
The Court further examined whether the authorities had sufficient material to conclude that Rana would abscond to Nepal. It found that the circumstances relied upon for reaching that conclusion were inadequate. The mere fact that the petitioner was a Nepalese citizen did not establish that he had no meaningful ties with India. On the contrary, the record showed that his family had lived in Nainital for decades and had established a permanent residential and property connection there.
The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner's family circumstances had not been properly appreciated in the earlier decision rejecting parole. The authorities had relied on the petitioner's Nepalese nationality and the absence of family ties in Himachal Pradesh. The High Court found that these considerations could not be mechanically applied without examining the actual circumstances of the prisoner. A convict does not necessarily have to have family members living in the same State where he is imprisoned in order to establish a legitimate reason for seeking parole.
This aspect of the judgment is significant because parole applications require an individualised assessment. The authorities must consider the prisoner's conduct, the purpose for which parole is sought, family circumstances, the possibility of absconding and any threat to public order or security. The Court's reasoning indicates that a blanket approach based solely upon nationality would not satisfy this requirement. Each application must be assessed on its own facts.
The Court's approach also distinguishes between a foreign nationality and an actual risk of flight. A prisoner may be a foreign citizen while still having substantial and established connections in India. Conversely, the mere existence of family connections does not automatically guarantee that a prisoner will not abscond. What matters is whether the authorities have sufficient factual material to establish the statutory grounds for refusing temporary release. In Rana's case, the High Court found that the State had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for its apprehension.
The Court consequently set aside the order dated June 23, 2026, by which Rana's parole application had been rejected. The High Court held that parole could not have been denied merely because of his Nepalese citizenship. Having considered his family circumstances, his long association with India and his satisfactory conduct in custody, the Court directed that he be released on parole.
The parole was granted for a period of four weeks. The Court did not grant unconditional release. Instead, it imposed safeguards intended to ensure that the petitioner would remain subject to the authority of the law and return to custody after the expiry of the parole period. Rana was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and two surety bonds of ₹1 lakh each. He was also required to give an undertaking to maintain good conduct and surrender after completion of the four-week parole period.
The conditions imposed by the Court demonstrate the balance between the rehabilitative purpose of parole and the need to protect the administration of criminal justice. The Court recognised the prisoner's right to temporary contact with his family while simultaneously ensuring that there were financial and legal safeguards requiring him to comply with the conditions of release. The undertaking to surrender at the end of the parole period was particularly important in addressing the State's concern regarding possible non-return.
The judgment does not establish that every foreign national serving a sentence in India is automatically entitled to parole. Rather, it establishes that foreign citizenship cannot, standing alone, constitute a sufficient ground for refusal when the statutory requirements and the individual circumstances otherwise support temporary release. The authorities must demonstrate a legally relevant reason, such as a genuine threat to public order, State security or a substantiated risk of absconding, rather than relying on nationality as a substitute for such evidence.
The decision also reinforces the principle that prisoners retain certain familial and social interests despite incarceration. A sentence of imprisonment restricts liberty, but the correctional system also seeks to facilitate rehabilitation. Where a prisoner has maintained meaningful family relationships and has demonstrated satisfactory conduct in custody, temporary release can serve a legitimate rehabilitative purpose. The Supreme Court precedent cited by the High Court supports this broader understanding of parole.
Another important aspect is the Court's refusal to mechanically rely on previous administrative decisions. The authorities had referred to earlier reasons for denying parole, including the petitioner's foreign citizenship and the fact that his family was not located in Himachal Pradesh. The High Court emphasised that such reasons must be examined against the current factual circumstances. Where the record demonstrates that the prisoner's family has actually established itself in India for several decades, earlier assumptions about lack of Indian family ties cannot simply be repeated without proper assessment.
The case therefore illustrates the judiciary's role in reviewing administrative decisions concerning prisoners. Parole decisions involve a degree of administrative assessment, but such discretion is not unlimited. The decision must be based on relevant statutory considerations and supported by material circumstances. If an authority relies on an irrelevant or insufficient consideration, the High Court can intervene under its writ jurisdiction.
The ruling may also have wider implications for prisoners who have nationality or family connections outside the State where they are incarcerated. It makes clear that the question is not simply where a prisoner holds citizenship, but whether the circumstances demonstrate a real and legally relevant risk associated with temporary release. Longstanding family residence, property ownership, satisfactory prison conduct and the purpose for which parole is sought can all be relevant factors.
At the same time, the Court has not diluted the importance of public safety. Its reliance on the statutory grounds recognised in Arjun v. State of H.P. makes clear that parole can still be refused where release is likely to endanger State security or prejudice public order. The judgment therefore does not create an unrestricted right to temporary release. Instead, it requires the authorities to justify refusal on legally recognised grounds rather than on nationality alone.
In conclusion, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a convict's Nepalese citizenship cannot, by itself, justify denial of parole when his family has been residing in India for decades. Justice Rakesh Kainthla considered the case of Vicky Rana, a life convict whose request for parole had been rejected on the ground that he was a Nepalese citizen and might abscond to Nepal. The Court found that his family had lived in Nainital for approximately 30–35 years, had a house and property there, and that his wife, minor daughter, father and other relatives were residing in India. His conduct in custody was also recorded as satisfactory. Relying upon Arjun v. State of H.P. and the Supreme Court's decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, the Court emphasised that parole serves reformative and rehabilitative purposes and can be refused only on legally recognised grounds such as threats to State security or public order. The High Court therefore set aside the rejection order and directed Rana's release on parole for four weeks, subject to a ₹1 lakh personal bond, two surety bonds of the same amount, good-conduct conditions and an undertaking to surrender after the parole period.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.