IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. :13923 of 2025 Reserved on : 12.09 .2025 Decided on : 16.09 . 2025 Rakesh Kumar alias Bhollu …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 : Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.

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

Virender Singh, Judge.

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Rakesh Kumar alias Bhollu 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:

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 18/03/2025 Annexure P2 passed by the respondent No. 2

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

whereby the parole case of the petitioner has been rejected.

b) That by way of writ of mandamus the respondents may be directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 28 days while reconsidering his application dated 05/10/2024 Annexure P1 in the said regard.”

2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Fast Tack Court (POCSO), Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, for the offences, punishable under Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) and Sections 341, 377, 323 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), vide judgment of conviction, dated 29^th September, 2023 and vide order of sentence, dated 9^th October, 2023, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ₹

twenty years and to pay a fine of 1,20,500/-.

3. According to the petitioner, he applied for grant of parole for a period of 28 days, by way of application, dated 5^th October, 2024 (Annexure P-1) in order to meet his family.

4. As per the petitioner, his application has been rejected by respondent No. 2, on 18^th March, 2025, vide Annexure P-2, without assigning any justifiable reason.

5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order (Annexure P- 2), 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.

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

7. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner had applied for grant of 28 days’ parole, on 5^th October, 2024, to meet his family.

8. 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 grounds that the petitioner is involved in heinous crime under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act; he is a habitual offender with convictions in multiple cases, and, therefore, his presence is dangerous to the security of the State or pre-judicial to the maintenance of public order.

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

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

11. As per the custody certificate (Annexure P-3), the total sentence undergone by the petitioner, as on 4^th August, 2025, is two years, five months and fourteen days. 12. The petitioner has applied for 28 days’ parole, which was recommended to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Mandi, vide letter, dated 2^nd January, 2025 (Annexure R-2/4), on the grounds that the petitioner is involved in heinous crime under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act; he is a habitual offender with convictions in multiple cases, and, therefore, his presence is dangerous to the security of the St