IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 9919 of 2025 Reserved on : 18.07 .2025 Decided on : 25.07 . 2025 Satish Kumar @ Bichhu …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor and Mr. Nitish, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge.

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Satish Kumar @ Bichhu has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs, amongst others:

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

“A. That Annexure P-4 the impugned order dated 10-06-2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. The petitioner may kindly be released on parole for a period of 28 days on the terms and conditions, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, for the offence, punishable under Section 20 (b) (II) (c) of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ₹

twelve years and to pay a fine of 1,20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year and four months.

3. According to the petitioner, he has already undergone a total substantive sentence period of four years, two months and sixteen days.

4. The petitioner applied for grant of parole for a period of 28 days, by way of application, dated 11^th December, 2024 (Annexure P-2) in order to meet his family.

5. According to the petitioner, his application has been rejected by the respondents, on 10^th June, 2025, vide Annexure P-4, without assigning any justifiable reason.

6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order (Annexure P- 4), by virtue of which, the request of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, has been rejected. A prayer has also been made to allow his request for parole.

7. When put to notice, the factual position, with regard to conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner, has not been disputed by the respondents.

8. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner had applied for grant of 28 days’ parole, on 11^th December, 2024, to meet his family.

9. According to the respondents, the request of the petitioner was duly forwarded to the District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate, Mandi, and Superintendent of Police, Mandi, however, District Magistrate, Mandi, has not recommended the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner is involved in heinous crime under NDPS Act and is a habitual offender with convictions in multiple cases.

10. It is also the case of the respondents that the local police and inhabitants of the locality have strongly objected to the temporary release of the petitioner. The other allegations have also been controverted by the respondents.

11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.

12. As per the custody certificate, the substantive sentence undergone by the petitioner is four years, two months and sixteen days.

13. The petitioner has applied for 28 days’ parole, which was recommended to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Mandi, vide letter, dated 6^th March, 2025.

14. The primary purpose of releasing the convict on parole has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Asfaq versus State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2017) 15 SCC 55. Relevant paras-17 to 24, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

“17. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that amongst the various grounds on which parole