The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted four weeks’ parole to a Nepalese citizen serving a life sentence, holding that his citizenship by itself could not justify denial of parole when his family members had been residing in Nainital for several years.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla passed the order on August 12, 2026, while hearing a petition challenging the rejection of the prisoner’s parole application.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Vicky Rana, had sought parole to meet his family members. His application was rejected after the authorities raised an apprehension that, on the ground that he was a Nepalese citizen and there was an apprehension that he might abscond to Nepal.
The petitioner argued that the apprehension was unfounded because his family had been residing at Nainital for around 30–35 years and had a permanent residential property there. The State opposed the plea, relying on the non-recommendation of the District Magistrate and also pointing to the nature of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner.
The Court noted that the custody certificate showed satisfactory conduct inside jail. It further examined Rule 3(2) of the Prisoners Rules, which requires consideration of whether temporary release would endanger the security of the State or prejudice the maintenance of public order.
Court’s Observation
The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, which recognises parole as an opportunity for prisoners to maintain family and social connections and encourages rehabilitation where the prisoner demonstrates good conduct.
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Arjun v. State of H.P. & Others, observing that parole could not be denied merely because a prisoner was a Nepalese citizen where he had established family and residential connections in India. The record showed that the petitioner’s parents had constructed a house and that his family had been living in Nainital for decades.
The Court stated:
“Therefore, in view of the binding precedent of this Court, the parole could not have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a citizen of Nepal when his family members are residing at Nanital for 30-35 years.”
The Court also noted that the petitioner’s conduct in custody was satisfactory and that no adverse entry was found in the police stations, while his jail conduct was recorded as satisfactory.
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the June 23, 2026 order rejecting parole. It directed that Vicky Rana be released on parole for four weeks upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and two surety bonds of the same amount. He was required to maintain good conduct and surrender before the Superintendent of Jail after the parole period. The Probation Officer was directed to closely monitor his activities, while the Superintendent, Jail was permitted to impose additional suitable conditions.
Case Title: Vicky Rana v. State of H.P. & Ors.
Case Number: CWP No. 11238 of 2026
Judge: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Decision Date: 12 August 2026
