IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 17276 of 2025

Reserved on: 12.12.2025

Date of Decision: 1.1.2026

Sahil Khan ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P. and others ...Respondents.

Coram o

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the P etitioner : Mr Kulwant Singh Gill,

Advocate.

gFor the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,

Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking

to quash the order dated 22.2.2025 and release him on parole.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was convicted by learned Special Judge-II, Fast Track Court, Sirmaur at Nahan, HP, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 6 of the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). He is undergoing imprisonment in Model Central Jail, Nahan. He applied for parole; however, his application was rejected vide order dated 22.2.2025. The petitioner has a right to reform himself and reunite with the family. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the petitioner had applied for 28 days’ parole on 27.8.2024 to meet his family muembers. His request was forwarded to the District Magistroate and Superintendent of Police, Sirmour at Nahan, as Cper the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. The case of the petitioner was not recommended by District Magistrate, Sirmour at Nahan, because Hhis neighbour, Dharmo Devi, complained about the heated arguments between the petitioner and his father, which disturbed the peace in the locality. The victim’s father also stated that the petitioner had harassed the victim’s family by making phone calls from the Jail. The competent authority rejected the application for parole after the receipt of these reports, as per the law. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr Kulwant Singh Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Kulwant Singh Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has a right to meet his family members and he is entitled to be released on parole. The parole cannot be denied to the petitioner on irrelevant considerations. Theu competent authority rejected the petitioner’s apploication without verifying the correctness of the statementsC. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the Hcompetent authority rejected the application for parole after due application of mind. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 390: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1092, that parole grants an opportunity to the convict to maintain his links with society. Convicts must breathe fresh air for at least some time. If they maintain good conduct during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves, parole should not be denied to them. It was observed at page 60: -

“10. In the first inst ance, it would be necessary to understand the metaning and purpose of the grant of parole. It would bre better understood when considered in contrast wiuth furlough. These terms have been legally defined and judicially explained by the courts from time to timoe.

11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough. A parole can be defined as the conditional release of prisoners, i.e. an early release of a prisoner, cond