IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2139 of 2025 Decided on: 30.04.2025 __________________________________________________________

Bhagwan Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Tejasvi Verma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge [Oral]

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking enlargement on parole on the ground that he intends to meet his family and also to look-after his property.

2. As per custody certificate, petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs.46,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, 4 months in case FIR No.213 of 2020, dated 21.06.2020, under

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Sections 376AB, 376(2) (f) & 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court [POCSO], Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment dated 13.05.2022.

3. From material placed on record, it appears that petitioner has suffered conviction and sentence for violating the person of his daughter.

4. It has come on record in the response filed by the State that family of petitioner do not intend to meet petitioner keeping in view the nature of offence committed by him and property is being looked-after by his brother, namely Ghanshaym.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present petition.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per instructions imparted to him, petitioner’s property is being grabbed by his brother, who is stated to have been looking-after the property of petitioner and even the family of petitioner has refused to meet the petitioner, the petitioner intends his enlargement on parole for looking-after his property.

7. Application filed by petitioner was not for the ground being sought now by learned counsel for petitioner, therefore, we do not find any merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

8. However, petitioner shall have liberty to file fresh application by stating fresh grounds being narrated by his counsel in the Court and in case such application is preferred by petitioner, the same shall be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law applicable in the matter, without being influenced by dismissal of the present petition. Such application shall be decided by the concerned authority in a time bound manner as prescribed under Chapter-XIX of the Prison Manual.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Vivek Singh Thakur)

Judge (Ranjan Sharma)

Judge April 30, 2025 [Bhardwaj]