Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Petitioner herein, who at present is undergoing sentence at Model Central Jail, Nahan, for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 342 of IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act, as awarded by the learned Special Judge Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh vide judgment dated 13.12.2024 in connection with FIR No. 23 of 2017, dated 14.6.2017, PS Keyong, District Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside order dated 17.1.2026 (Annexure P-7), whereby prayer made on his behalf for grant of parole for 28 days has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as material adduced on record by the respective parties are that afore FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner under Sections 342 of IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act. Learned Special Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Session Trial No.05/201, held the accused guilty of his having committed offences under the afore provisions of law and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Custody certificate placed on record as Annexure P-1, reveals that petitioner has already undergone sentence of one year, six months and eight days and prior to his being convicted, he also remained on bail for almost seven years. There is nothing adduced on record by the respondents along with the reply suggestive of the fact that during afore period, petitioner ever indulged in illegal activities or made any attempt to cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix.

3. After his having completed more than one year, six months and eight days, petitioner herein applied for parole vide application dated 18.9.2025 (Annexure P-2) under the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (for short the “Act”). However, such prayer of him was rejected vide order dated 17.1.2026 Annexure P-7 on the ground that concerned District Magistrate has not recommended the parole release of the accused based on the objections raised by the victim party as access/approach to the house of the accused passes through the house of the complainant, thereby increasing the likelihood of confrontation and posing risk to safety of victim party. Besides above, ground of safety of victim party also came to be cited at the time of rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of parole.

4. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed, rather an attempt has been made to on the pretext that accused 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 to release the petitioner for meeting his family members. Besides above, it is further stated in the reply filed by the respondents that specific objection has been raised by family of the victim with regard to release of the petitioner on parole because in the event, he may further cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix.

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

6. 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?”

7. 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 famil