2025:HHC:27341 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9685 of 2025 Reserved on: 06.08.2025 Date of Decision: 13.08.2025 Kalyan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : M/s. Karan Kapoor and Nitish Advocates. For the Respondents/State. : Mr. Jitender K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) and seeking a direction to the respondents to release him on parole for 28 days. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for life in F.I.R. No. 302 of 2011, dated 08.12.2011, registered at Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27341 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner has completed 12 years, 4 months and 2 days in custody. The petitioner had earlier filed an application for parole for 28 days to meet his family members, however, the same was rejected by the respondents. The application was processed by the respondents and was rejected. The petitioner availed parole for 14 days as per the orders passed by this Court. He applied for parole in the year 2024, but his application was rejected. He filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 5804 of 2024; however, the same was dismissed. The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the special leave petition was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The application for parole was rejected because more than 30 cases of murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, theft, robbery, etc. were registered against the petitioner, and he is likely to jump parole in case of his release. The petitioner had availed the parole of 14 days in the year 2023 and thereafer surrendered. Therefore, the rejection of the application is bad. Hence, the petition. 3 The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted by learned Sessions Judge Chamba for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 328, 473 read Section 34 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo 3 2025:HHC:27341 rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of ₹50,000/- with a default sentence. The petitioner had completed 13 years, 05 months and 04 days as on 16.06.2025. An F.I.R. No. 250 of 2000 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 379 and 328 of the IPC is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajasthan. 30 cases of murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, theft, robbery, etc. were registered in different Police Stations against the petitioner. The petitioner was taken to attend his daughter’s marriage on 10.03.2020 and 11.03.2020. He was released on parole for 14 days. The petitioner’s case was not recommended by District Magistrate, Sirmour, H.P., because of the pendency of multiple cases against him. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard M/s Karan Kapoor and Nitish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the application for parole was wrongly rejected by the respondents. The custody certificate shows that the behaviour of the petitioner inside the jail was satisfactory; therefore, 4 2025:HHC:27341 apprehension expressed by the respondents that the petitioner is likely to be involved in a similar offence in case of his release on parole is without any basis. The petitioner surrendered on time when he was earlier released on parole. Therefore, apprehension that the petitioner would abscond is not supported by his previous conduct. The parole should be liberally granted to the petitioner to enable him to maintain social ties. Therefore, he prayed that the petitioner be released on parole. He relied upon judgments of this Court in Arjun vs State of H.P. & others CWP No. 4537 of 2023, decided on 12th September, 2023, and Arjun @ Joun vs State of H.P. and others CWP No. 449 of 2020, decided on 27.02.2020, in support of his submission. 6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner had earlier applied for parole and his application was rejected on the ground of pendency of the multiple cases against him. This rejection was upheld by this Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent had taken a reasonable view of the matter, and no interference is required with it. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2025:HHC:27341 7 I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition titled Kalyan Singh vs. State of H.P. & others in CWP No. 5804 of 2024, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 16.07.2024 after holding that registration of 30 cases against the petitioner would disentitle him to the grant of parole. This order was unsuccessfully assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11775 of 2024 titled Kalyan Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. 9. In the present case also, the application for parole was rejected on the ground that 30 cases are pending against the petitioner. This was held to be a valid consideration for rejection by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, whose judgment is binding upon this Court. The judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to parole because of the registration of multiple cases as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6 2025:HHC:27341 10. The judgment in Arujn (supra) and Arjun @ Joun (supra) do not deal with the situation where the parole was rejected by the competent authority, and the order was upheld by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the cited judgments do not apply to the facts of the present case. 11 Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to parole. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 12. The present petition stands disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) 13th August 2025. Judge (ravinder)