2026:HHC:29333 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4533 of 2026 Reserved on: 13.07.2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026. Aanchal Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Himanshu Kapila, Advocate Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondents : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 42 days' parole to the petitioner as per the law. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted by learned Special Judge Mandi, District Mandi for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and was sentenced to undergo 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29333 rigorous imprisonment for 11 years, pay a fine of ₹1,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1 year and 1 month. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge Mandi, which is pending before this Court. The petitioner applied for parole because he was a poor person and wanted to do agricultural work. However, his application was rejected because of non-recommendation by the District Magistrate. The decision taken by the respondents is contrary to the provisions of H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release Act), 1968, (Prisoners Act), and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner wants to meet his family members and maintain social ties in society. Hence, the present petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply, asserting that the present matter is governed by the Prisoners Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It was admitted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by learned Special Judge Mandi, and he had applied for 28 days' parole on 31.01.2025. It was asserted that the application was sent to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police for inquiry. It was found after the inquiry that the petitioner was not residing at his parental 3 2026:HHC:29333 home, and his permanent address was not known. The petitioner's wife stated that she had taken a divorce from the petitioner and that she had no relationship with him. The Gram Panchayat had also objected to the grant of parole. The application for parole was duly rejected after considering all these reports. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondents. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Himanshu Kapila, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Himanshu Kapila, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for seeking parole to do agricultural work and meet his family members. This application was wrongly rejected by the respondents. The petitioner has a right to meet his family members, and the rejection of his application was not justified. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole. 4 2026:HHC:29333 5. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had filed an application to meet his family members. His wife stated that she had taken a divorce from the petitioner, and the petitioner was not residing with her. Petitioner's brother stated that petitioner had left the ancestral home, and his whereabouts were not known. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that he wanted to meet his family members was not supported during the inquiry conducted by the police. The grounds for parole set out in the application were not satisfied, and respondents had rightly rejected the application. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The petitioner had filed an application for the grant of 28 days' parole to meet his wife. He stated in the application that he has one wife and one daughter. The daughter was married, and the wife was unable to maintain herself. The police recorded the statement of the petitioner's wife, who stated that she had taken a divorce from the petitioner, and she was not 5 2026:HHC:29333 aware of the petitioner's whereabouts. The police also recorded the statement of the petitioner's brother, who stated that the petitioner had left the home, and his whereabouts were not known. Thus, the plea taken by the petitioner that he wanted to meet his family members was not correct. His wife had taken a divorce from him, and he never met his brother after he had left his home. 8. It was submitted that the petitioner wanted to carry out the agricultural work, and he was required to be released on parole for this purpose. However, the petitioner had never applied for parole for doing agricultural work, and this ground is not available to the petitioner during the hearing. 9. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the releasing authority. Hence, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 10. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th July, 2026 (Nikita)