IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 14748 of 2025 Reserved on : 10.10.2025 Decided on : 17.10 . 2025 Prem Singh …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. Subhash Chander, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge.

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Prem Singh 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 in above premises this Hon’ble Court may please quash and set aside the impugned order (Rejection order) i.e. Annexure P-3, being illegal, wrong and unconstitutional and the present petitioner may please be enlarged on parole for 28 days keeping in view Annexure P-2 and P-3 alongwith pleadings mentioned herein above, in the interest of justice;

(b) That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly also be pleased to grant the parole to the petitioner for 28 days in view of the facts & circumstances narrated in the Civil Writ Petition.”

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, vide judgment, dated 5^th December, 2024, for the o under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 13 years and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,30,000/-.

3. The petitioner applied for grant of parole for a period of 42 days, by way of application, dated 30^th December, 2024, for agricultural purpose.

4. According to the petitioner, his application has been rejected by respondent No. 2, on 16^th June, 2025, vide Annexure P-3, 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- 3), 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. According to the respondents, FIR No. 81 of 2021, dated 16^th June, 2021, registered under Section 39 of HP Excise Act, with Police Station Padhar, is pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P.

8. It has not been disputed that the petitioner had applied for grant of 42 days’ parole, on 30^th December, 2024, for agricultural purpose.

9. According to the respondents, the request of the petitioner was duly forwarded to the District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate 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 a heinous crime, under Section 20 of NDPS Act and is a habitual offender with other trial ongoing.

10. 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 period of sentence undergone by the petitioner, as on 30^th September, 2025, is four years, two months and eighteen days. The petitioner has applied for 42 days’ parole, which was recommended to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Mandi, vide letter, dated 30^th April, 2025, on the grounds, aforementioned.

13. 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 t