IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4528 of 2025 Decided on: 8th April, 2025 ___________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Abhimanyu Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has filed this petition seeking parole for seven days on the ground that petitioner is main Bajantri [drum player] of the fair going to be conducted in Jankhoti Rohru in the temple of local deity from 26.04.2025. 2. It has also been stated in certificate issued by Temple Management Committee that petitioner was main Bajantri [drum player] in the fair in reference and his father is not able to perform this job and therefore, presence of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - petitioner in the fair is necessary. 3. Reply on behalf of State is stated to have been filed in the Registry. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petition deserves to be considered and decided without waiting for placing on record the reply filed by the State as decision on the request of petitioner to enlarge him on parole is required to be taken at the earliest, keeping in view the short time-gap between the fair dates and holidays in the High Court during next week. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that in the reply it has been stated that petitioner has not filed any application for enlarging him on parole. Petitioner has already availed 28 days parole during the month of February and March from 03.02.2024 to 04.03.2025 and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for parole before expiry of six months after the previous parole. It has been further submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that reason for which parole is being sought is not a ground provided for enlarging a prisoner/convict on parole in Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners [Temporary Release] Act 1968 and Rules - 3 - framed thereunder. 6. Petitioner is a convict in case RBT Trial No.76-S/7 of 2019/20 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Ajay Kumar, in case FIR No.96 of 2019 dated 26.09.2019 under Section 376(3), Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered in Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., vide judgment dated 29.11.2022, passed by Fast Track Special Court [POCSO], District Shimla, H.P., whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 25 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo 15 months of imprisonment. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has tried to persuade the Court to enlarge the petitioner on parole, on the ground that there is no other one to play the drum in the fair of Devta, in reference and, therefore, enlargement of petitioner on parole must be ordered by exercising the discretionary power of the Court, even in absence of filing of application by the petitioner and for having no provision for grant of parole under the Act and Rules. 8. Petitioner had applied for parole recently. At that time it was in his knowledge that he has to - 4 - participate in the fair to perform his duty as main Bajantri [drum player], but instead of filing an application for parole during the period when fair was likely to be organized, petitioner, may be cleverly and deliberately, applied for parole in the months of February-March and has again approached the Court and, that too, without filing any application for enlarging him on parole on the pretext of his so called duty of drum player with the submission that there is no other one available to play the drum as Bajantri in the fair. 9. For having no provision under the Act and Rules, for enlarging the petitioner on parole, for which petition has been filed, it is not a fit case, in the given facts and circumstances to exercise the discretionary power. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge April 08, 2025 (Chiranjeev)