Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Status report stands filed by State alongwith documents, informing that request of petitioner has been rejected in view of non recommendation of District Authorities.

¶14

From material on record, it is apparent that petitioner is a convict and undergoing his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 20 years in

¶15

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

¶16

2

¶17

2024:HHC:14807-DB

¶18

CWP No. 10986 of 2024

¶19

Sessions Trial No.34 of 2022, in case FIR No. 26 of 2022 dated 6.7.2022, registered under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act in Women Police Station, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. After conviction, the petitioner has undergone 1 year 8 months detention and including undertrial period, he has undergone 2 years 7 months and 10 days detention till 3.10.2024.

¶20

As per material placed on record, mother of victim has stated that in case, during temporary release of petitioner on parole, he does not cause harm to her family or children, than she would have no objection for granting parole to the petitioner. Officers of Gram Panchayat and others have also communicated no objections for enlarging him on temporary release on parole. However, District Authorities have not recommended the case of the petitioner with submission that petitioner is also facing trial before Juvenile Justice Board, Kullu, in case FIR No. 240 of 2019, dated 2.9.2019, registered under Section 380 of IPC in District Kullu.

¶21

It has been further submitted that earlier petitioner had absconded, when he was undertrial prisoner, from Police custody and FIR No. 276 of 2022, dated 18.12.2022, under Section 224 of the IPC was registered in Police Station Sadar Mandi against petitioner and after admitting the guilt by the petitioner, he was convicted for 4 months imprisonment by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Mandi on 8.12.2023 and the said sentence shall commence after expiry of sentence in present case.

¶22

3

¶23

2024:HHC:14807-DB

¶24

CWP No. 10986 of 2024

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that realizing his

¶26

mistake, petitioner has admitted his guilt in FIR No. 276 of 2022 and for that he has to suffer four months further sentence after expiry of sentence in present matter and so far as pendency of trial before Juvenile Justice Board is concerned, i.e. prior in time to the offense committed in present case and further that in case petitioner still involves in unlawful activities or in acts amounting to breach of terms and conditions of parole, then he shall suffer for that and otherwise father of the petitioner is ready to stand surety for good conduct of the petitioner.

¶27

It has also been submitted that in similar circumstances, Coordinate Benches of this High Court vide judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed in CWP No.5978 of 2023, titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others ; judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed in CWP No.5965 of 2023 , titled as Retaish Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others ; judgment dated 09.10.2023 in CWP No.6562 of 2023, titled as Pushp Raj vs. State of H.P. & others ; judgment dated 23.05.2023 passed in CWP No.1710 of 2023 , titled as Bihari Lal vs. State of H.P. & others ; judgment dated 23.07.2021 passed in CWP No.3516 of 2021 , titled as Virender Kumar alias Bindu vs. State of H.P. & others ; and judgment dated 20.05.2024 passed in CWP No.2640 of 2024 , titled as Lucky vs. State of H.P. & others ; judgment dated 10.12.2024, passed in CWP No.12159 of 2024 , titled Bhura Khan Vs.

¶28

4

¶29

2024:HHC:14807-DB

¶30

CWP No. 10986 of 2024

¶31

State of H.P. & others , and judgment dated 11.12.2024 passed in CWP No. 11597 of 2024 , titled as Govind Vs. State of H.P. & others after taking into consideration pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2017) 15 SCC 55 , have enlarged the petitioner(s) therein on parole.

¶32

It has also been submitted that for the material on record, petitioner is also entitled for release on parole and rejection of his application on the alleged apprehension of the State is not sustainable in absence of any material to substantiate the same.

¶33

Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of instructions

¶34

placed on record, has failed to point out any material to substantiate the plea for which parole application of the petitioner has been rejected, particularly in

¶35

absence of any such incident while petitioner was on parole at previous occasion.

¶36

Taking into consideration entire material placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner cannot be denied parole on the ground which has been cited by the respondents for rejecting his application.

¶37

Otherwise also, in case of breach of any condition of parole order for any unlawful activity, petitioner has to suffer consequences in accordance with law including cancellation of his temporary release on parole.

¶38

5

¶39

2024:HHC:14807-DB

¶40

CWP No. 10986 of 2024

¶41

Accordingly, rejection communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 28.6.2024 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents-State to reconsider the case of the petitioner for extending benefit of parole to him for a period of 28 days to be specified in appropriate order to be issued to the concerned Authority within seven days from today to ensure enlargement of the petitioner on parole after completing all necessary formalities, including furnishing of bonds etc., including surety of father of the petitioner for good conduct of the petitioner, immediately thereafter.

¶42

Needless to say that petitioner shall abide by the conditions imposed upon him by the concerned Authority, in accordance with law, and Rules applicable during the parole period, including to surrender before the Superintendent Jail concerned on expiry of parole period. Petitioner’s parole shall be liable to be cancelled in case of breach of any condition of parole order and/or on creating law and order problem which shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of his similar prayers in the future.

¶43

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, so also pending application, if any.

¶44

Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this judgment downloaded from the Website of the High Court before the Authorities concerned and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified

¶45

6

¶46

2024:HHC:14807-DB

¶47

CWP No. 10986 of 2024

¶48

copy, but, if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the

¶49

High Court or otherwise.

¶50

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.