(2025:HHC:30404 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10085 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.08.2025 Date of Decision: 05.09.2025. Rajinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ... Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Soni, Advocate. Mr. For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 months simple imprisonment for commission of an offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, to pay fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The petitioner remained in custody for five years and nine months, and will complete six years of his incarceration on 19.09.2025. He was released on parole for twenty- eight days. His mother expired on 30.04.2025. The petitioner could not attend her funeral at Hamirpur. The petitioner had applied for parole in March 2025, however, no action was taken in the matter. Hence, the present petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC. The petitioner had undergone a substantive sentence of imprisonment of five years, nine months and thirteen days as on 25.07.2025. His conduct in jail was found to be satisfactory. He had applied for parole on two occasions, but his parole application was rejected by the competent authority. He was granted twenty-eight days’ 3 parole in compliance with the order passed by this Court in CWP No.5543 of 2022 dated 23.03.2023. He applied for forty-two days’ parole to meet with his family members on 11.03.2025. The application was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur. The petitioner's wife and his mother, and Pardhan of Panchayat objected to the petitioner’s release on parole. The petitioner's wife stated that the petitioner had beaten and threatened her when he was earlier released on parole. He sold all the rations kept in the house and also locked the room where she used to stay. She did not want her husband to visit the home on parole. The application for parole was rejected vide order dated 25.07.2025. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Vinod Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner wants to meet his brother to condole the death of his mother. Therefore, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole. 4 5. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner's wife objected to his parole on the ground that he used to beat her. The local villagers also objected to his parole. The purpose of seeking the parole is frustrated after the objection of the petitioner’s wife. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner had applied for parole to meet his family members. The application was verified by the Superintendent of Police, District Hamirpur, through the S.H.O., Police Station, Hamirpur. The petitioner's wife made a statement that she was residing alone in her house. The petitioner was earlier released on parole, and he had given her beatings. He threatened to break her legs. He sold the ration and locked the house where she was residing. She did not want that the petitioner should be released on parole. 8. Veena Devi supported the statement of the petitioner’s wife. She stated that the petitioner is a dangerous person and he 5 could commit any offence. Therefore, he should not be released on parole. Sunita Kumari also made a similar statement. 9. It is undisputed that the petitioner's mother has expired. The petitioner’s wife is objecting to his release on parole. Therefore, the purpose of the petitioner to seek parole to meet his family members has been frustrated by the refusal of his family members to meet him. Hence, the respondents were justified in rejecting the application for parole. 10. A heavy reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Principal Bench of this Court in Kashish Gulyani versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2025:HHC:10797. However, parole was rejected in the cited case on the ground that there was no likelihood of the petitioner surrendering after the completion of parole. In the present case, the parole has not been rejected on this ground but on the ground that the very purpose of seeking the parole has not survived after the refusal by the wife of the petitioner to meet him. Hence, the cited judgment does not apply to the present case. 6 11. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondents declining the parole to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. (Rakesh Kainthla) 5th September. 2025 Judge (yogesh)