(2025:HHC:11519 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2929 of 2024 Decided on : April 28, 2025 Sumit Kumar Sharma …..Petitioner (Lodged in Model Central Jail Nahan, District Sirmour,H.P.) Versus State of H.P. and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondents/ State : Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General, alongwith Mr.Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, petitioner has approached this Court for enlarging him on parole as his application for parole to meet his family members was rejected by the Competent Authority which was communicated to him vide communication dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) issued from the Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh. 2. As per Custody Certificate dated 19.11.2024 issued by Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, petitioner is serving his sentence awarded by Sessions Judge, Chamba, in case FIR No.05 of 2012, dated 08.05.2012, in Sessions Trial No.30 of 2012 (43/2013), under Sections 302 of IPC and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Pangi, District Chamba, H.P., whereby petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to …2… ( 2025:HHC:11519 ) undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `1,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years. As on date, petitioner has undergone substantive sentence for a period of 12 years, 5 months and 13 days, after deducting 28 days of parole availed by him earlier. 3. The only objection as appearing from the contents of reply is that concerned District Magistrate has not recommended the case of the petitioner by stating that petitioner seeks parole merely for personal leisure and enjoyment, and there is high possibility of him absconding if released on parole. No other ground has been cited for not recommending case of the petitioner for parole. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in similar circumstances, Coordinate Benches of this High Court vide judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed in CWP No.5978 of 2023, titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed in CWP No.5965 of 2023, titled as Retaish Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others; judgment dated 09.10.2023 in CWP No.6562 of 2023, titled as Pushp Raj vs. State of H.P. & others; judgment dated 23.05.2023 passed in CWP No.1710 of 2023, titled as Bihari Lal vs. State of H.P. & others; judgment dated 23.07.2021 passed in CWP No.3516 of 2021, titled as Virender Kumar alias Bindu vs. State of H.P. & others; and judgment dated 20.05.2024 passed …3… ( 2025:HHC:11519 ) in CWP No.2640 of 2024, titled as Lucky vs. State of H.P. & others, after taking into consideration pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2017) 15 SCC 55, have enlarged the petitioner(s) therein on parole in similar circumstances. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, as is also evident from the Custody Certificate placed on record, that earlier petitioner was also enlarged on parole for 28 days and there is no report that during that period he had breached any of the conditions of parole, rather record indicates that he had surrendered before the concerned Jail Superintendent on expiry of parole period for which he was enlarged on parole. Therefore, there is nothing on record to substantiate apprehension communicated by the District Authority, on the basis of which application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh. 6. Taking into consideration entire material placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner cannot be denied parole on the ground which has been cited by the respondents for rejecting his application. 7. Therefore, we quash and set aside the rejection of the parole application filed by the petitioner preferred in present matter, which was communicated to the petitioner vide …4… ( 2025:HHC:11519 ) communication dated 18.01.2025 placed on record as Annexure P-4. 8. Accordingly, respondents are directed to extend benefit of parole to the petitioner for a period of 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, Model Central Jail, Nahan. The petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, immediately on expiry of 28 days of parole. 9. For extending benefit of parole, on usual terms 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 of breach of any condition of parole order and/or on creating law and order problem which shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of his similar prayers in the future. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in aforesaid terms, so also pending application, if any. ( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge. (Sushil Kukreja) April 28, 2025 Judge. (Purohit)