IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. :17569 of 2025 Reserved on : 11.12 . 2025 Decided on : 17.12. 2025 Vinod Kumar …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. Sohail Khan, Legal Aid Counsel.

For the respondents : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Ms. Ranjna Patial and Ms. Avni Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocates General.

Virender Singh, Judge.

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Vinod Kumar 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. Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to grant parole to the petitioner in a time bound manner, as per law laid down therefor.

B. The petitioner may kindly be released on parole for a period of 42 days.”

2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment, dated 3^rd May, 2025, for the o under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of ₹ 10,000/-.

3. According to the petitioner, he has already undergone sentence of two years, eight months and eight days, as on 6^th November, 2025. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon the custody certificate, Annexure P-1.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had moved an application for grant of parole for a period of 42 days, by way of application, dated 29^th May, 2025 (Annexure P-2), for agricultural purpose, which was rejected, by the respondents, vide letter, dated 17^th September, 2025 (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. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner had applied for grant of 42 days’ parole, for agricultural purpose.

8. According to the respondents, the request of the petitioner was duly forwarded to the District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, however, District Magistrate, Kangra, has not recommended the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground that the mother of the victim has raised an objection to release the petitioner on parole, as, according to her, the houses of the petitioner and the victim are nearby and the victim is under fear, as, she has not yet recovered from the incident that happened to her.

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-1), the total sentence undergone by the petitioner, as on 6^th November, 2025, is two years, eight months and eight days. The petitioner has applied for 42 days’ parole, which was recommended to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Kangra, vide letter, dated 1^st September, 2025 (Annexure R-2/4).

12. 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 can be granted, the most important ground,