Dismissed¶23

Rajat Goswami v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Apr 2024CWP/2592/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.2592 of 2024; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decision date 10.04.2024; Bench: Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan (author) and Justice Sushil Kukreja. Parole petition of Rajat Goswami dismissed. Key terms: grant of parole; antecedents of convict; Section 21-22 NDPS Act conviction (judgment dated 30.11.2022); 11 years rigorous imprisonment; fine Rs.1,50,000/-; under-trial in murder case; risk of influencing, threatening or dissuading witnesses; District Magistrate Kangra non-recommendation upheld.

What did the court decide?

Antecedents of a person claiming parole are an important factor which the Court is required to keep in consideration. ¶22

Rajat Goswami Vs State of Hp and Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.2592 of 2024 Date of Decision: 10.04.2024

¶4

____________________________________________________

¶5

Rajat Goswami

¶6

....Petitioner Versus

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

____________________________________________________ Coram_

¶10

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge

¶11

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶13

________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Jaiprabha & Ms. Tejasvi Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

¶14

________________________________________________

¶15

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶16

Petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of

¶17

parole. The respondents have placed on record instructions dated 10.04.2024, which go to indicate that the petitioner not only has been convicted for the offence under Section 21-22 of NDPS

¶18

Act, vide judgment dated 30.11.2022 and sentenced to undergo

¶19

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶20

¶21

rigorous imprisonment for 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-, but is also an under-trial in a murder case.

¶22

Antecedents of a person claiming parole is an important factor, which is required to be kept in consideration by the Court. Even the fact that once the petitioner is an under-trial, that too, in a murder case, the chances of his influencing, threatening or dissuading the witnesses at the time of release on parole cannot be ruled out.

¶23

In such circumstances, the District Magistrate, Kangra has rightly not recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of parole. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶26

(Sushil Kukreja) April 10, 2024 Judge (VH)

Rajat Goswami v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Goswami v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Mahajan Vs Union of India and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Roop Lal Vs State of Hp

Vikram Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Hp and Others

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Hp