1 2025:HHC:17529-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 11077 of 2024 Reserved on : 23.05.2025 Decided on : 04 .06 .2025 Shubham Chauhan …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. I.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner- Shubham Chauhan 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:17529-DB “i. That the letter/order dated 20.06.2024 issued by Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P. rejecting/not considering the parole application of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, whereby the respondents & more particularly respondent No. 4 may kindly be directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days strictly in terms of the prescribed (Rules 1969) as framed under the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisons (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Rules 1969), so that the petitioner may be in a position to solve his personal as well as his family problems in the interest of justice.” 2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, after registration of FIR No. 88 of 2017, under Sections 302 & 429 IPC and FIR No. 89 of 2017, under Section 302 IPC, with Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., the petitioner was arrested, on 15th August, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2019, as well as, Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2019, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 25th May, 2024 and 28th May, 2024, and has been sentenced, as follows: 3 2025:HHC:17529-DB Section Sentence imposed Default sentence Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2019 302 IPC imprisonment for life and fine of 20,000/- ₹ imprisonment, for a period of six months 429 IPC imprisonment for five years and fine of ₹ 10,000/- imprisonment for a period of three months Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2019 302 IPC imprisonment for life and fine of 20,000/- ₹ imprisonment, for a period of six months 3. Thereafter, on 3rd June, 2024, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-1) to the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail Kanda, seeking parole, for a period of one month. However, according to the petitioner, the said application has not been considered by the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda. As such, on 17th June, 2024, he has filed the application (Annexure P-2) for early disposal of the application. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 20th June, 2024, the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, issued a letter (Annexure P-3) to the father of the petitioner that the petitioner was sentenced with imprisonment for life, in two different cases, on 25th May, 2025 and has not yet completed one year, after conviction, as such, he is not entitled for the relief, as claimed in the 4 2025:HHC:17529-DB application, as per para 19.12 of the H.P. Prison Manual, 2021. 5. 5. On the basis of the above facts, the petitioner has sought the relief, as reproduced, hereinabove. 6. When put to notice, the respondents have filed the instructions on 26th October, 2024, admitting the factual position and asserted the fact that till 25th October, 2024, the petitioner had undergone seven years, two months and twelve days imprisonment. 7. It is the further stand of the respondents that vide judgment, dated 8th April, 2024, this Court, in CWP No. 1447 of 2024, titled as Meera Devi versus State of H.P. & ors., has held that one year should be counted from the date of initial custody, i.e. actual imprisonment. In this regard, the respondents have issued office letter, dated 13th August, 2024, directing all the Superintendents of Jail, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, to follow these instructions. 8. According to the respondents, thereafter, the petitioner has again applied for parole, vide application, dated 30th September, 2024, for agricultural purposes, 5 2025:HHC:17529-DB which has been rejected by the respondents, vide letter, dated 25th October, 2024 (Annexure-J). 9. When, Annexure-J, by virtue of which, the petitioner’s application for parole, dated 20th September, 2024, which fact, although, has not been mentioned in the writ petition, has not been called in question, by the petitioner, in the instant writ petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of, however, with liberty to the petitioner, to assail, rejection order dated 25th October, 2024, passed by the respondents, if so advised. 11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 04, 2025 ( rajni )