IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.457 of 2025 Decided on: 8th April, 2025 ___________________________________________________________ Nikka Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court for enlarging him on parole by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner is a convict in 9 cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He has been sentenced in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - each case separately and sentence shall run consecutively. In these nine cases he has been sentenced to undergo total imprisonment of six years and four months, out of which he has served one year and two months. 3. It is apt to record that petitioner is facing trial in 12 more cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. As per certificates issued by Superintendent Jail, placed on record, petitioner has served sentence in three cases for a period of one year, one year and six months respectively and at present he is serving his sentence in the 4th case since 08.01.2025, wherein he has been sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment by learned JMFC, Court No.III, Shimla. 5. According to the petitioner, he has not availed benefit of parole at earlier point of time and it is the second time he has prayed for enlarging him on parole. It has been further submitted that earlier application preferred by petitioner was rejected by the authority and CWP NO.8648 of 2024 titled as Nikka Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., filed by petitioner was also dismissed by the Division - 3 - Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2024. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that grounds for enlarging him on parole, in earlier application were different to the grounds at present. This time petitioner is seeking enlargement on parole for arranging marriage and engagement of his son, who is residing with his wife in Shimla and his daughter is also studying in Shimla. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner for allowing the application, has placed reliance on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as coordinate Bench of this High Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2017) 15 SCC 55; judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed in CWP No. 5965 of 2023, titled as Retaish Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others; judgment dated 9.10.2023 in CWP No. 6562 of 2023, titled as Pushap Raj Vs. State of H.P. & others; judgment dated 23.5.2023 passed in CWP No. 1710 of 2023, titled as Bihari Lal Vs. State of H.P. & others; judgment dated 23.7.2021 passed in CWP No. 3516 of 2021, titled as Virender Kumar @ Bindu Vs. State of H.P. and others. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of instructions placed on record, has failed to point out any - 4 - material to substantiate the plea for which parole application of the petitioner has been rejected. 9. Taking into consideration material placed before us and pronouncements referred hereinabove, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that parole application filed by the petitioner has been rejected wrongly and erroneously. 10. Therefore, we set aside the rejection of the parole application filed by the petitioner referred in present matter, which was communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 19th July, 2024, placed on record. 11. Accordingly, respondents are directed to extend benefit of parole to the petitioner for a period of 2 weeks i.e. 14 days on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of ₹ ₹50,000/- each to the satisfaction of Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P. The petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail Kanda, H.P., immediately on expiry of 2 weeks of parole. 12. For extending benefit of parole, requisite appropriate order shall be issued by competent authority - 5 - in accordance with law within 10 days. However, the petitioner’s parole shall be liable to be cancelled in case he breaches any of the conditions of the parole order and/or creates law and order problem, which shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of his similar prayers in the future. The instant writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge April 08, 2025 (Chiranjeev)