IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. :21143 of 2025 Reserved on : 07.01.2026 Decided on : 0 8.01.2026

Anshul @ Anshu …Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others …Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Singh Verma, Legal Aid

Counsel.

For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Mohinder

Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy

Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge.

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner-

Anshul @ Anshu 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.

“i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quash and set aside the Annexure P-2 dated 10.09.2025 in the interest of justice and fair play.

ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for the period of 28 days to meet with family and to maintain family and social ties, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, for the offence, punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and to pay a fine of ₹ 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. According to the petitioner, he, as well as, his family members want to meet each other, hence, he applied for grant of parole for a period of 28 days, by way of application, dated 28^th June, 2025 (Annexure P-1).

4. The said application of the petitioner is stated to have been rejected by the respondents, on 10^th September, 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, 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 28^th June, 2025, 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 and Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala. In pursuance of the same, District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, has not recommended the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground that the victim and her brother have raised objections, for the release of the petitioner on parole, as, he may cause them physical and mental harm. An apprehension has also been made that the petitioner may against commit similar offence, in case, he is ordered to be released on parole.

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 R-3/2), the substantive sentence undergone by the petitioner, as on 5^th January, 2026, is one year, eight months and twenty days. The petitioner has applied for 28 days’ parole, which was recommended to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide letter, dated 22^nd August, 2025.

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 R