2025:HHC:9266 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2885 of 2025 Date of decision: 3.4 . 2025 Sunil Kumar. …Petitioner. (Lodged in District Jail, Mandi). 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. Mr.Mohan Singh, 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 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 of conviction and sentence dated 20.10.2023/1.11.2023 passed by Special Judge-II, Mandi in case FIR No. 11 of 2021, under Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act, in District Jail, Mandi, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:9266 CWP No. 2885 of 2025 H.P. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and to pay fine of 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to ₹ further undergo simple imprisonment for two years, for offence under Section 20 of NDPS Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years under Section 20 of NDPS Act. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he had applied for parole in August, 2024 on the ground to meet his parents, wife and children and also to manage affairs of his property. 4. Petitioner remained undertrial prisoner for 2 years 9 months and 21 days. Thereafter, he is in Jail as convict. On 3.3.2025, he had served substantive sentence of 4 years 1 month and 24 days and as on date he has served substantive sentence of more than 4 years 2 months and thus after conviction petitioner has served for more than 1 year sentence as convict. These facts are evident from the Certificate of Imprisonment issued by Superintendent Jail on 3.3.2025. 5. Reply to the petition has been filed. Alongwith reply, communication dated 31.1.2025 (Annexure R-5) has been placed on record, whereby it has been informed that in view of non-recommendation of District Authorities, parole case of the petitioner has been rejected. 6. From the reply or documents filed therewith, nothing transpires about the reasons for non-recommending the case of the petitioner for parole. 3 2025:HHC:9266 CWP No. 2885 of 2025 7. It is also apparent from the record that petitioner had filed application for parole to meet his parents, wife and children and also to manage affairs of the property. 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. 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. Parole application was preferred by petitioner for meeting his old parents and family and agricultural purpose as provided under Section 3 4 2025:HHC:9266 CWP No. 2885 of 2025 (C) of the Act, for which maximum period for release on parole is available for six weeks. 11. 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. 12. 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 31st January, 2025, placed on record as Annexure R-5. 13. Accordingly, respondents are directed to extend benefit of parole to the petitioner for a period of 4 weeks i.e. 28 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, District Jail Mandi, ₹ H.P. The petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Distrcit Jail Mandi, H.P., immediately on expiry of 4 weeks of parole. 14. 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 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. 5 2025:HHC:9266 CWP No. 2885 of 2025 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)