IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3487 of 2026 Date of Decision: 4.5.2026 ____________________________________________________________

Rakesh Kumar @ Tranda …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the Petitioner: Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and uMr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

____________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Petitioner herein, who is undergoing life imprisonment for his having allegedly committed offences under Sections 302, 323, 325 and 341 of IPC in connection with FIR No. 139 of 2021, dated 31.12.2021, PS Phadhar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, and at present is undergoing sentence at Model Central Jail, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, applied for parole vide application dated 24.8.2025 (Annexure P-1), but since no Haction, if any, ever came to be taken on the afore request of him, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following relief:

“(i). 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 therefore.”

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that application for parole having been filed at the behest of the petitioner, stands rejected vide order dated 9.12.2025 (Annexure R-2/5). Careful perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that concerned District Magistrate did not recommend the parole release of the convict based upon objection raised by the Superintendent of Police Mandi, owho in his report submitted that convict is a irascible individual, who frequently provokes disputes and local inhabitants have also mentioned that convict has a short temper and is prone to sudden outburst.

3. Admittedly, petitioner is a life convict and pursuant to his being awarded life imprisonment, he has already spent more than four years and three months in jail and as such, he is otherwise entitled to apply for parole, however his prayer has been rejected for the reasons as detailed in order dated 9.12.2025 (Annexure R-2/5).

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

5. Question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is “whether prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for parole can be rejected on the ground of gravity of offence, alleged to have been committed by him, as well as other objections raised by family of the victim?”

6. Though reply filed by respondent-State nowhere suggests that petitioner’s conduct during incarceration was not satisfactory, but yet prayer made on his behalf for parole has been rejected on the ground that he has been convicted for heinous crime and objection qua his release has been raised by the Administration of the State as well as family of the victim. It has been submitted at the behest of respondent-State that grant of parole is a privilege and not a matter of right of a convict. While referring to Section 3 of the Act, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that convict is entitled to be released on poarole subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority. Since in the instant case, competent authority has apprehension that petitioner may abscond and may also cause harm to the victim’s family, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for parole cannot be accepted. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, also referred to Section 6 of the Act, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if, o