145 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-5489-2025 Date of Decision:26.05.2025 Sunil @ Shunty …Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Hoshiar Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue appropriate directions to respondents No.1 and 2 to consider and decide the parole case of the petitioner, which is stated to be pending since 30.01.2025 before the competent authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was tried and convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra under Section 364-A,149 of IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. He had filed an criminal appeal No.532-DB-2013 before this Court, which was finally dismissed on 02.02.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for grant of parole before this Court, however, when no action was taken, the petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 7999-2023, titled as “Sunil @ Shunty Vs. State of Haryana and others”, before this court, which was allowed. Again, the petitioner had filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.9168-2024, before this Court and the said petition was also allowed, by this Court. 3. He next contends that now, again the petitioner approached HITESH 2025.05.27 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRWP-5489-2025 -2 respondent No.3 for grant of regular parole. His parole case was initiated vide letter dated 575-78 dated 30.01.2025 for conducting verification and passing of final order. However, even after lapse of more than 04 months, no action has been taken by respondents No.1 and 2. He next contends that at this stage, he shall be satisfied, in case, appropriate directions are issued to respondents No.1 and 2 to decide the parole case of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and he has no serious objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, respondent No.1 is directed to decide the parole case of the petitioner within a period of two weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Diposed of. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 26.05.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2025.05.27 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh