Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Petitioner herein, who is a life convict and at present is undergoing sentence at Model Central Jail, Kanda, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to quash and set aside the order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby prayer made on his behalf for release on parole for 28 days has been rejected.

For having bird’s eye view, quintessential facts, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that FIR No.77 of 2014, under Sections 302, 364-A, 347, 201 and 506 IPC, was lodged against petitioner as well as other two co-accused namely Vikrant Bakshi and Tijender Pal Singh on account of their having allegedly kidnapped and murdered one child.^{1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?}

Learned Session Judge, Shimla, held all the accused guilty of their having committed offence punishable under Sections 302, 364-A, 347, 201 and 506 IPC and accordingly awarded them death penalty. Subsequently, in the appeals filed by the accused, named hereinabove, death sentence awarded against two accused, i.e. Vikrant Bakshi and present bail petitioner, was modified to life imprisonment, whereas third accused namely Tijender Pal Singh was acquitted.

Petitioner herein, who has completed more than 11 years, along with other co-accused Vikrant Bakshi, applied for parole under Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, (for short, ‘the Act’) vide application dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P- 2). Though prayer made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereas other co-accused Vikrant Bakshi, who is also a life convict, was granted parole for 28 days. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for setting aside order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) and allow the application for parole.

Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, rather attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the pretext he has committed heinous crime, having adverse impact on the society, coupled with the fact that there is no provision under the Act as well as Rules framed thereunder to release the petitioner for meeting his family members. Reply filed by the respondent-State further reveals that local inhabitants of the area, where petitioner-convict prior to his conviction was residing, is seriously opposed to the parole, if any, granted to the petitioner. Besides above, family of deceased has also objected for grant of parole on the ground that petitioner may cause harm to his minor children and elderly mother. Reply filed by the respondent-State further reveals that till date, fine awarded by learned Sessions Judge, while holding petitioner guilty of his having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, has also not been deposited.

This Court, having taken note of aforesaid objections taken at the behest of respondent-State, coupled with the fact that learned counsel representing the petitioner apprised this Court that petitioner has residential house at some alternate place, where his mother at present is residing, vide order dated 03.03.2026 directed learned Additional Advocate General to verify the correctness of aforesaid submission made at the behest of petitioner. In terms of afore order, respondent-State verified that mother of the petitioner, is residing in Zirakpur (particulars withheld to protect the identity of her mother), for last three years.

I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record of the case.

Question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is “whether prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for parole can be reje