IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. :1 8224 of 2025 Decided on : 17.12 . 2025 Sewa 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. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Sewa Kumar 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:

“A. That issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to grant parole to the

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

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 and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., vide judgment dated 28^th August, 2023, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced as under:

(i) Rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC;

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ₹ 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. By way of application, dated 7^th May, 2025 (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 42 days, for agricultural purpose.

4. According to the petitioner, his application for parole has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide order, dated 18^th August, 2025 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of non-recommendation of the District Authorities.

5. Challenging the rejection of his 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 him on parole, has been rejected and sought the relief, as claimed in his 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 42 days’ parole on 7^th May, 2025 (Annexure P-2), for agricultural purpose. Thereafter, his request was duly forwarded to District Authorities, i.e. District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala and Superintendent of Police, Police District Nurpur, H.P., for recommendation/verification, as per the provisions of the Act, however, the District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide letter, dated 24^th June, 2025 (Annexure R-2/3), has submitted the report not recommending the benefit of parole to the petitioner, on the ground that the as per the report of Sub Divisional Police Officer, Indora, the petitioner and his father do not have any land for cultivation, other than their house. The parents, brother, local panchayat and the police are also stated to have opposed the release of the petitioner on parole, as, he may commit some untoward incident or some untoward incident may occur against him.

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

9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer ha