( 2025:HHC:9738 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3338 of 2025 Date of decision: 7 .4 . 2025 Kedar Singh …Petitioner. (Lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan) 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. Nitish, 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 has approached this Court seeking his enlargement on parole for rejection of his application filed for the said purpose. Rejection of Parole Application has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure R-5), stating therein that concerned District 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 CWP No. 3338 of 2025 ( 2025:HHC:9738 ) Magistrate has not recommended the temporary release of convict on parole for the objection raised by the local police, as he may again indulge in the NDPS related activities and may push the young generation into drug addiction, if released on parole. Admittedly there is no previous history of the petitioner of involvement in NDPS cases accept the present case in which he has been convicted. There is a reference to a case against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which cannot be termed as a case pertaining to NDPS Act. Except the aforesaid objection, there is no other objection either in the form of documents or communicated to the petitioner for rejecting the application for parole. 3. Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple ₹ imprisonment for the period of 02 years, in case FIR No.18/21, dated 23.03.2021 in Sessions Trial No-21-ST/7 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Kedar Singh, under Section 20(b)(II)(c) of NDPS Act, PS Sangarh, District Simaur (H.P) and is undergoing the part sentence in Model Central Jail, Nahan. The sentence was passed by learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur, District at Nahan (H.P), vide judgment dated 31.07.2023. 4. As per Custody Certificate petitioner has served 03 years 10 months and 07 days sentence till 29.01.2025. 3 CWP No. 3338 of 2025 ( 2025:HHC:9738 ) 5. Case of the petitioner is that he had applied for parole on the ground to meet his family consisting of his aged parents, wife two children (16 years old daughter and 14 years old son) and also for making arrangement for livelihood of his family. 6. From the reply or documents filed therewith, nothing transpires about the reasons for non-recommending the case of the petitioner for parole. 7. There is nothing on record to substantiate the plea that the petitioner may indulge in commission of similar offence under the NDPS Act, except the bald apprehension expressed by the Police Department. In any case, for any such repeated offence, petitioner shall not only be liable to be punished in accordance with law but also shall disentitle him for disentitle him from parole in future. 8. 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, Model Central ₹ Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. The petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail Nahan, H.P., immediately on expiry of 4 weeks of parole. 9. For extending benefit of parole, requisite appropriate order shall be issued by competent authority in accordance with law within 10 4 CWP No. 3338 of 2025 ( 2025:HHC:9738 ) 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. 7th April, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)