Pushap Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

“(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quash and set aside the Annexure P-3 dated 24.09.2024 in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶14

(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for the period of 42 days, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶15

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

¶16

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:30-DB )

¶17

It is not in dispute that the petitioner earlier on three occasions has already been granted parole and during such period, there is no complaint whatsoever against him.

¶18

The instant petition is opposed on the ground that the father of the victim has objected to the release of the petitioner on the ground that he may quarrel with his family members. However, record reveals that victim has got married about 5-6 years ago in Nirath, District Shimla, H.P. and presently, it is the father of the victim who resides alone at his house built in his orchard in Village Daropar.

¶19

Given the fact that the petitioner was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 376D, 452 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’), the crime essentially would be relatable to the victim, however, as observed above, the victim has married about 5-6 years ago. Therefore, in such circumstances, the objection raised by the father of the victim appears to be unfounded. Additionally, as observed above, the petitioner has also been released on parole

¶20

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:30-DB )

¶21

earlier on three occasions and there has been no complaint whatsoever against him regarding his conduct during such parole period.

¶22

In the given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to allow this petition by quashing the rejection order passed by the competent authority on 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) and direct the release of the petitioner on parole for a period of 42 days, subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Model Central Jail Kanda, District Shimla. H.P.

¶23

6. Ordered accordingly.

¶24

It is also made clear that petitioner shall surrender before the aforesaid Superintendent Jail on expiry of parole period. In case, the petitioner breaches any of the conditions of parole order or creates any law and order problem, then, the respondents are at liberty to seek cancellation of the parole and take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶25

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:30-DB )

¶26

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, respondents are at liberty to impose any other condition which is reasonable, in addition to the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid order, if deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

¶27

The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.

¶28

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶29

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶30

1^st January, 2025 (Saurav pathania )

¶31

Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.01.01 17:50:07 IST

Pushap Raj v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushap Raj v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Sarwan Kumar

Sunder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Budhi Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Bihari Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Desh Raj Vs Simro Devi

Radha Vs Sahil Yadav