IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.750 of 2025 Decided on : 17.07.2026 Rajinder Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of HP and Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. George, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2025, passed in CWP No.10085 of 2025, titled Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of HP, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present appellant had been dismissed 2. In the writ petition, challenge had been laid to the rejection of parole order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure R-2/5). A perusal of the said order, would go on to show that the reasons given by the Additional Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services, HP, for rejecting the parole were that the wife of the appellant had raised objection that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes on the last occasion, the appellant used to get drunk and beat her and there was atmosphere of fear and danger to life in village as well as to the family. 3. In pursuance of the order dated 09.01.2026, affidavit has been filed by Capt. Vinay Kumar, who is stated to be the real brother of the appellant. Perusal of the affidavit would go on to show that the appellant would not visit the place where his wife is residing at present and will stay with his brother at Hamirpur during the entire parole period and it is prayed that the benefit of parole be extended to the appellant. 4. Custody certificate dated 03.12.2025 has been perused by us from which it is evident that appellant had undergone 6 years 1 month and 21 days’ imprisonment and was also earlier released on parole for 28 days. Thus, it is not disputed as per the custody certificate 03.12.2025 that the petitioner has undergone the actual sentence for the above said period. 5. The right of grant of such parole, as such, has already been dealt with by us in CWP No.2609 of 2025, titled Kashish Gulyani Vs. State of HP and Ors., decided on 11.04.2025, wherein we have held that the object and mandate of law in parole would be rendered redundant and otiose, if rejection is to be done on technicalities and even the petitioner-convict has a fundamental right to live with dignity. 6. The apprehension of the wife as such has been solely looked after, as the affidavit has been filed by the brother of the appellant, who is an Ex-serviceman and, therefore, we expect that undertaking would duly be honoured. It is not disputed that on the earlier occasion, the appellant had been released on parole for 28 days and there is no such incident regarding threatening to the mother of the victim as such. 7. The Co-ordinate Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 11599 of 2024, titled as Narayan Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 10.01.2025, had placed reliance upon the binding precedents of the Apex Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC 55, wherein it was held that a prisoner should be allowed to maintain family and social ties and one of the objectives behind sentence and punishment is to reform the convict. 8. On an earlier occasion, in Civil Writ Petition No. 4964 of 2020, titled as Yashpal Jaspal @ Mintu Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided by a Co-ordinate Bench on 04.06.2021, challenge had been laid to the non-recommendation of the District Magistrate, Moga on the ground that there was apprehension of breach of law and order and apprehension of danger to the life of other party, in case of release of the petitioner on parole. 9. Resultantly, reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered by this Court in CMP No. 3970 of 2020 in CWP No. 2931 of 2019, titled ‘Mrs. Har Dei versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others’, decided on 03.06.2020, CWP No. 414 of 2020, titled Mrs. Kavita Thakur versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 25.06.2020, CWP No. 529 of 2018, titled Jagat Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 26.06.2012 and CWP No. 663 of 2020, titled Sajid versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 29.06.2020 and CWP No. 1664 of 2020, titled as Paramjit Singh @ Pamma vs. State of H. P. & Ors., decided on 07.08.2020 and CWP No. 1497 of 2020, titled as Anil Kumar vs. State of H. P. & Ors., decided on 07.10.2020. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining the relief as such only on account of the said perception of the other party is not justified. The appellant’s wife may not want him to be released on parole, but he has other relatives and his brother has given an affidavit to the effect that the appellant would not meet his wife. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the said order is not liable to be sustained 11. Resultantly, we allow the present petition, the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2025 and also the order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure R-2/5) are set aside. The Respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole, if not required in any other case, as per the relevant provisions. 12. The present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 17th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)