IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. :13188 of 2025 Reserved on : 01.09 . 2025 Decided on : 03.09.2025 Geeta Devi …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. Bhupender Singh Ahuja, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge.

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Geeta Devi has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive relief, amongst others:

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

“(i) Issue appropriate writ directing respondents to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of 28 days.”

2. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., vide judgment dated 16^th March, 2024, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 302, 328 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment ₹

for life and to pay a fine of 60,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner has further been ordered to be undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and two months.

3. By way of application, dated 30^th December, 2024 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner approached the respondents for availing the benefit of parole, as per the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking parole for 28 days, to meet her family.

4. According to the petitioner, her application for parole has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide order, dated 15^th May, 2025 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of non-

recommendation of the District Authorities.

5. Challenging the rejection of her request, the petitioner has asserted that the ground, upon which, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, there is nothing on the record to justify the said rejection.

6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order (Annexure P- 3), by virtue of which, the prayer of the petitioner for releasing her on parole, has been rejected and sought the relief, as claimed in her application.

7. When put to notice, the prayer, so made, in the writ petition, has been opposed on the ground that the petitioner had applied for 28 days’ parole on 30^th December, 2024 (Annexure P-2), in order to meet her family. Thereafter, her request was duly forwarded to District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Mandi, H.P., for recommendation/verification, as per the provisions of the Act, however, the District Magistrate, Mandi, vide letter, dated 28^th March, 2025 (Annexure R-2/4), has submitted the report not recommending the benefit of parole to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner is involved in heinous crime, under Section 302 IPC, and is a habitual offender with conviction in multiple cases, as such, her presence is dangerous to the security of State or pre-

judicial to the maintenance of public order.

8. The other allegations have also been controverted by the respondents.

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

10. As per the custody certificate (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has undergone total sentence of two years, eleven months and thirteen days, as on 31^st May, 2025. Her case has not been recommended for parole by District Magistrate, Mandi, vide letter, dated 28^th March, 2025 (Annexure R-2/4).

11. 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