( 2025:HHC:11510 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4139 of 2025 Decided on: 28.04.2025 ______________________________________________________________ Hem Raj ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy 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 in order to meet his family and look-after his agricultural land, after setting aside the rejection of his application vide communication dated 22.02.2025, issued by Director General, Prison & Correctional Services, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:11510 ) 2. Perusal of custody certificate, placed on record as Annexure P-1, dated 27.02.2025, issued by Superintendent, Model Central Jail Nahan, H.P., indicates that the petitioner is serving rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of 1,00,000/- and in default of ₹ payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year in case FIR No. 75/2017, imposed in Sessions Trial No. NDPS- 35/2023/17, Regd. No. NDPS 49/2017, under Section 20(b) (II) (c) of NDPS Act, awarded by learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., vide judgment dated 06.10.2023. The custody certificate further indicates that the petitioner has undergone total sentence of three years, six months and one day. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application, filed for enlarging the petitioner on parole in the month of August, 2024, was also rejected by the respondents- authority on flimsy grounds, but at that time, the petitioner had not approached the Court, however, now his parole application has been again rejected only on the ground that he is involved in a heinous crime under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and the field report does not 2 ( 2025:HHC:11510 ) indicate poverty and inability of the family of the petitioner to come and meet him and, therefore, reasons given by the petitioner to avail parole are not sustainable and governed under Section 3 of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances, number of persons have been enlarged on parole either by the Authorities or by the Courts. To substantiate his plea, he 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 3 ( 2025:HHC:11510 ) of his application for non-recommendation by the Authorities on the ground that the family of the convict can come to meet him in the jail, is not sustainable in absence of any material to substantiate the same. 4. 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. 5. Taking into consideration the 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. 6. 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 22.02.2025, issued by Director General, Prison & Correctional Services, H.P., Annexure P-2. 7. 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 4 ( 2025:HHC:11510 ) ₹ 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 04 weeks of parole. 8. For extending benefit of parole, on usual terms, requisite appropriate order shall be issued by competent authority in accordance with law within 10 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 ( Sushil Kukreja ) April 28, 2025 Judge (raman) 5 Digitally signed by VIRENDER BAHADUR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU= HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd97b9e2898117bfa 738990a0ea7ba, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b84983689d02 7cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER BAHADUR Reason: I am approving this document Location: Date: 2025.04.30 16:21:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 VIRENDER BAHADUR