2025:HHC:13307-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No : 585 of 2025 Decided on : 07.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of HP & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Present petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus for decision of the parole application dated 17.08.2024. The parole had been sought on the ground that he belongs to a poor family and agriculture is the main source of income and his wife alone had to manage all domestic and agricultural affairs and finding it difficult, the family was in dire need of his presence and therefore, parole had been sought for 42 days. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:13307-DB - 2 - 2. Vide order dated 12.03.2025, while entertaining the present petition, we had directed that the decision be taken by competent authority. Vide communication dated 31.01.2025 [Annexure R-5], Director General Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh informed the Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda (Shimla) that the case of the petitioner was got verified by the concerned District Authority and District Magistrate has not recommended his parole on the objections raised by local police as the petitioner may again indulge in drug trafficking. 3. Perusal of Annexure R-4 would go on to show that the report of Thana In-charge [SHO] apparently made with the Additional District Magistrate Kullu, recommendations were accordingly given not for the release on parole while forwarding the same to the Director General Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh which led to the passing of the said order. 4. We are of the considered opinion that this 2025:HHC:13307-DB - 3 - order is not sustainable. More so, apparently the ground of rejection as such is speculative that the petitioner may indulge in such activities which is mitigating against the basic principles of grant of parole which have been laid down in Asfaq versus State of Rajasthan and others, (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 55, wherein it is held that the purpose of parole as such is to help the person to merge into society and to be accepted as citizen and a humanistic approach should be adopted which the authorities apparently failed to consider. 5. Perusal of the Custody Certificate dated 09.01.2025 [Annexure R-2] would go on to show that out of 12 years sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 20 of ND&PS Act, by the Special Judge (Forest) Shimla, on 01.09.2023 he has undergone 5 years, one month and 11 days sentence and has not availed parole for even a single day. 6. A similar certificate dated 17.08.2024 appended as Annexure P-3 would go on to show that he had undergone 4 years, 8 months and 19 days 2025:HHC:13307-DB - 4 - sentence and the parole period was NIL and there was additional remark given by Superintendent of Jail that there is no pending case for trial against the convict as per the official record. 7. Even during verification as per Annexure R-4/T done by the police authorities, it has been found that the petitioner used to reside with his wife, and his daughter and son are studying in 10+1 class and their dependency is on agriculture. The only ground was that the work of apple plantation had already been done by Vinod Kumar. It is also admitted that there is none at home except his wife to look after the agricultural work and the children, who are studying. There is nothing to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents as such and even there is positive report dated 08.08.2024 received from the Gram Panchayat [Annexure R-4/T]. The Pradhan Gram Panchayat has also given a report that after taking him into custody, his wife is managing family annual expenditure with difficulty by doing labour work and 2025:HHC:13307-DB - 5 - the Gram Panchayat has no objection in case the parole is granted to the petitioner. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would not be appropriate to ask the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the order of rejection, as parole was prayed way back in August 2024. 9. Resultantly, we quash the said order keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is seeking parole for agriculture purposes. 10. Accordingly, petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for six weeks as per Sections 3(1)(c) and 2(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, on his furnishing necessary bail bonds to the satisfaction of competent authority concerned, with a direction that he shall surrender on the next day after expiry of said period of parole at 10:00 a.m. before the Jail Superintendent concerned. 2025:HHC:13307-DB - 6 - 11. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 07, 2025 [Shivender/Himani]