2026:HHC:19365 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8217 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.5.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Vaseem …….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. Karan Kapoor, Mr. Nitish and Mr. Santosh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and 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 respondent to consider his prayer for grant of parole in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that prayer for parole made through application dated 11.3.2026 (Annexure P-2), if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. 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 at this stage. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2026:HHC:19365 4. Having carefully perused communication dated 11.3.2026 (Annexure P-2), this Court finds that petitioner, who is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years pursuant to his conviction in FIR No. 24/2022 dated 17.2.2022 (ST No. 11 of 2022) registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, at PS Sundergar District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, had applied for parole in the month of March 2026, but till date no action has been taken upon the same. More than two months have been passed, but till date, no action has been taken upon the request of the petitioner 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 prayer made by the petitioner for grant of parole vide communication dated 11.3.2026 (Annexure P-2), if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. In the afore terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 22, 2026 manjit