2025:HHC:17530 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 4350 of 2025 Reserved on : 27 .05.2025 Decided on : 04 .06.2025 Kalyan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge. Petitioner-Kalyan Singh, by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has filed the present writ petition, seeking the following substantive reliefs, amongst others: 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2025:HHC:17530 2 “i. That the respondent may kindly be directed to decide the application of petitioner in time bound manner. ii. That the petition may kindly be allowed and direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 28 days.” 2. According to the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. vide judgment, dated 3rd November, 2012, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 328, 473 and 34 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 50,000/-. ₹ 3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved application, on 7th February, 2025 (Annexure P-2) seeking parole for 28 days, in order to meet his family members, especially, his wife, who remains ill, on account of old age ailments. 4. It is the case of the petitioner, the said application was not decided by the respondents, even, after a lapse of more than three months. Thereafter, he again 2025:HHC:17530 3 moved an application on 14th November, 2024, seeking the relief of parole, for 28 days. 5. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the said application has not yet been decided. As such, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the instant writ petition, seeking the relief, as reproduced hereinabove. 6. When put to notice, the respondents have filed the reply, disclosing therein that after receiving the petitioner’s application on 14th November, 2024, the same was forwarded to the District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur, H.P., who have not recommended the case of the petitioner, for parole. Consequently, his application was rejected, vide letter, dated 9th April, 2025 (Annexure R-5). 7. In view of the absence to the challenge to the said rejection letter, the relief, as sought in the writ petition, cannot be granted to the petitioner. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, however, with liberty to the petitioner, to seek the relief, as claimed vide prayer Clause (ii), by 2025:HHC:17530 4 challenging the rejection order (Annexure R-5), if so advised. 8. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 04, 2025 ( rajni )