1 2026:HHC:793 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 675 of 2025 Decided on: 01 st January , 2026 ________________________________________________________ Kalyan Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellant: Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the benefit of parole has not been granted, which has been sought for in CWP No. 9685 of 2025, by the petitioner, which was dismissed on 13.08.2025. 2. The petitioner had laid challenge to the order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), wherein, on account of the recommendations of the District Magistrate and on account of large number of cases registered against him i.e. about 30 cases, in various 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2026:HHC:793 police stations and upon apprehension that he would jump parole if he was given the said parole, the case of parole of the petitioner was rejected. 3. The sole reason for rejection was the number of cases, while the learned Single Judge also noticed that the petitioner has earlier availed the parole of 14 days in the year 2023 and thereafter has surrendered. No findings have been recorded that during the period of earlier parole he had been involved in any other case or that he has not surrendered again. It is not disputed that petitioner has completed 12 years 04 months and 02 days custody when the learned Single Judge decided the writ petition on 13.08.2025 and further a time of six months has gone thereafter. 4. The Apex Court in Asfaq Versus State of Rajasthan and others, (2017) 15 SCC 55, has dilated on the purpose of benefits of the parole, which is given with an objective of reformation of the convicts and that convicts have to maintain links with the society and it is for public interest. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4537 of 2022 titled, Arjun versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 12.09.2023, has also placed reliance upon the said judgment of the Apex Court and the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, which governs the 3 2026:HHC:793 conditions and the rights of parole. 5. The aspect of earlier release on parole and having surrendered without being involved in further cases, thus mitigates against the recommendations of the District Magistrate and therefore we are of the considered opinion that order of the learned Single Judge does not stand judicial scrutiny as the peculiar fact missed the attention of the learned Single Judge. 6. Resultantly, we set aside the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge and also quash the order dated 09.04.2025 of Director General Prisons & Correctional Services qua rejecting the parole case of the present appellant. The State shall take a fresh call on the ground of parole within a period of three weeks. 7. Keeping in view the above present appeal is accordingly allowed. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 01 st January , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge