1 2025:HHC:17029 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 4349 of 2025 Reserved on : 27 .05.2025 Decided on : 02.06.2025 Kuljeet Singh @ Raja …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. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner- Kuljeet Singh @ Raja has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs, amongst others: 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17029 “A. That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the case of the petitioner in time bound manner. B. The petitioner may kindly be released on parole for a period of 28 days on the terms and conditions, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment, dated 14th July, 2022, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 392 read with Section 34 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 40,000/-, with default sentence. ₹ 3. According to the petitioner, by way of application, dated 4th February, 2025 (Annexure P-2), he has approached the respondents for availing the benefit of parole, as per the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking parole for 42 days, for agricultural purposes. 3 2025:HHC:17029 4. The petitioner is stated to have undergone nine years three months and ten days sentence, in terms of the custody certificate (Annexure P-1). 5. On the basis of the above facts, a direction has been sought to be issued to the respondents to decide the parole application of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 6. When put to notice, the respondents-State have filed the reply, wherein a stand has been taken that the District Authorities have not recommended the parole case of the petitioner, as such, the application of the petitioner, seeking parole, has been rejected by the competent authority, vide letter, dated 7th April, 2025 (Annexure R-7). 7. In view of the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner, seeking parole, in the considered opinion of this Court, the relief, as sought by the petitioner, vide prayer clause (A) has become infructuous, and the relief, as claimed, vide prayer clause (B), cannot be granted to him, in the absence of the challenge to the rejection order, at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek the relief, as claimed vide prayer Clause (B), of the relief 4 2025:HHC:17029 clause, by challenging the rejection order (Annexure R-7), 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 02, 2025 ( rajni )