IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6034 of 2026 Date of Decision: 27.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhura Khan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitish, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since prayer made by the petitioner, who is presently undergoing life imprisonment, for grant of parole vide application dated 19.11.2025, whereby he has prayed for parole for a period of 28 days, is not being considered by the respondents for no cogent and convincing reasons, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Careful perusal of 2 pleadings as well as documents annexed with the petition, which is duly supported by affidavits, reveals that pursuant to judgment dated 5.10.2019, passed by the learned Session Judge, Nalagarh, in case FIR No.129 of 2015 dated 4.7.2015, petitioner herein is undergoing life imprisonment and at present, is lodged at Sub Jail Nalagarh. 3. Vide application dated 19.11.2025, prayer was made by the petitioner for parole of 28 days, but fact remains that till date, same has not been decided. Since petitioner has already completed more than 13 years and four months (sentence undergone with remission), prayer made for grant of parole in terms of rules occupying the field, deserves to be accepted expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going in the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with direction to the respondents to ensure that application, as detailed herein above, for grant of parole, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within one month in accordance with the rules occupying the field, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to approach this court in the instant proceedings for appropriate orders. Ordered accordingly. All miscellaneous application stands disposed of. April 27, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge