IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8623 of 2026 Date of Decision: 29.5.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Rohit Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Through instant petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India, a very innocuous prayer has been made by the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider his prayer for grant of parole in a time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of dispute and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, there appears to be no justification to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, states that application, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by affidavit, reveals that FIR No. 71 of 2023 was registered with PS Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 4 of the POCSO Act 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- against the petitioner. In afore case, petitioner ultimately came to be convicted for 12 years under the relevant provisions of law. 4. Bail petitioner, who has already undergone sentence of more than three years filed application dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) for grant of parole, but till date, no action has been taken upon his request and as such, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to direct the respondents to ensure that final decision on the application dated 30.12.2025, if not already taken, shall be taken, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. In the afore terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 29, 2026 manjit