2025:HHC:9269 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2884 of 2025 Date of decision: 3.4 . 2025 Rajesh Kumar. …Petitioner. (Lodged in Model Central Jail, Kanda) Versus State of H.P. & others. …Respondents. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner. Ms.Suchitra Sen, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General, wit Mr.Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for enlarging him on parole. 2. Petitioner is serving sentence for execution and implementation of judgment dated 4.4.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in case FIR No. 285 of 2014, under 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:9269 CWP No. 2884 of 2025 Section 302 of IPC in Model Central Jail Kanda, District Shimla, H.P. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo ₹ rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he had applied for parole in November, 2024, but he was not released on parole. It is further case of the petitioner that even on the death of his mother, petitioner was not permitted to attend the last rites and rituals of his mother and now his old aged father is at home and he intends to meet his father as well as to manage his agricultural property. 4. Petitioner remained undertrial prisoner for 9 years 3 months thereafter he is in jail as convict. On 19.1.2025 he had served substantive sentence of 10 years 1 month and 13 days and as on date he has served substantive sentence of more than 10 years 3 months and thus after conviction petitioner has served for more than 1 year sentence as a convict. These facts are evident from the Certificate of Imprisonment issued by Superintendent Jail on 19.1.2025. 5. Reply to the petition has been filed. Alongwith reply, communication dated 20.3.2025 (Annexure R-5) has been placed on record, whereby it has been informed that in view of non-recommendations of District Authorities, parole case of the petitioner has been rejected. 3 2025:HHC:9269 CWP No. 2884 of 2025 6. From the reply or documents filed therewith, nothing transpires about the reasons for non-recommending the case of the petitioner for parole, except that he has committed a heinous crime under Section 302 IPC. 7. It is also apparent from the record that petitioner had filed application for parole to look after and help his helpless father, who need special care and treatment and petitioner was intending to meet his father, because petitioner is away from his father since last more than 10 years. 8. 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; and submitted that for similar circumstances petitioner is also entitled for release on parole and rejection of his application for non-recommendation by District Authority is not sustainable in absence of any material to substantiate the same. 4 2025:HHC:9269 CWP No. 2884 of 2025 9. Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of instructions placed on record, has failed to point out any material to substantiate the plea for which parole application of the petitioner has been rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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 20th March, 2025, placed on record as Annexure-P5. 12. Accordingly, respondents are directed to extend benefit of parole to the petitioner for a period of 42 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, District Shimla, H.P., immediately on expiry of 42 days of parole. 13. For extending benefit of parole, requisite appropriate order shall be issued by competent authority in accordance with law within 10 days from today. However, the petitioner’s parole shall be liable to be 5 2025:HHC:9269 CWP No. 2884 of 2025 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. 3rd April, 2025 (Keshav)