IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12290 of 2026 Date of Decision : 7.8.2026 Govinda Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondents/State : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) It has been stated on behalf of the respondents/State that parole has been granted to the petitioner, therefore, present petition has become infructuous. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for 42 days of parole, but the same was curtailed to 14 days. Since the parole of 14 days has been granted in favour of the petitioner and his prayer for grant of parole was not rejected outrightly, therefore, the present petition stands 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate the curtailment of parole, if permissible as per law. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 7th August, 2026 (Chander)