The Releasing Authority's power to grant parole is independent; it must consider recommendations from the District Magistrate and Police but is not bound by them, nor is it precluded from deciding the application if such recommendations are not explicitly specific.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No
¹ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application for parole within 2 weeks or to release the petitioner on parole for 42 days.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO, Shimla, on 25.07.2023 in FIR No. 76 of 2019 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 506, and 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 25 years. He has already undergone a sentence of 6 years, 5 months and 22 days till 16.11.2025. The petitioner applied for parole on 29.07.2024 to meet his wife, aged parents, and minor children. The application has not been decided for over 18 muonths. The petitioner's family is facing hardship because of thoe petitioner's absence. Hence, it was prayed that the present Cpetition be allowed and a writ of mandamus as stated above be issued.

3. The petition is opposed by respondents 1 to 3 by filing a reply, making preliminary submissions that the petitioner’s case is governed by the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners Act (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 (Prisoners Act) and Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969 (Prisoners Rules). The petitioner had applied for parole on 29.07.2024. His application was sent to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, District Gopalganj, Bihar, for their recommendations/verification as required under the Prisoners Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Learned District Magistrate submitted his report vide letter dated 02.08.2025. However, the report was not specific, and he was requested to provide a clear and specific recommendation vide letter dated 04.09.2025. Reminders were issued on 17.01.2026, 12.03.2026 and 24.03.2026. The recommendation of the learned District Magistrate is essential for granting the parole. Since no recommendation was received, no action could be taken in the matter. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismisseud.

4. I have heard Mr Yudhbir Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate Ge neral for the respondents/State.

5. Mr Yudhbir Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents have failed to decide the petitioner’s application despite the lapse of more than one year. This is violative of the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of H.P. & Another 2025:HHC:16369. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the directions as prayed be issued to the respondents.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State, submitted that respondents No. 1 to 3 had forwarded the petitioner's application to respondent No. 4 for giving a specific recommendation in the matter. However, respondent no. 4 did not provide any specific recommendation despite various letters and reminders issued by respondents 1 to 3. The recommendation of the District Magistrate is essential before a person can be released on parole, and the petitioner's cas