Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

2025:HHC:9268-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 291 of 2025 Date of decision: 3.4. 2025

Rajinder Kumar. …Petitioner. (Lodged in Lala Lajpat Rai, District and Open Air, Correctional Home Dharamshala, H.P.) Versus State of H.P. & others. …Respondents. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

*For the Petitioner.*	*Ms.Srishti Chauhan, Advocate.*
*For the Respondents*:	*Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with*
	*Mr.Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General.*

¶6

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

¶7

Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for enlarging him on parole with further prayer to quash the rejection of his parole communicated vide communication dated 25.10.2024.

¶8

Petitioner is serving sentence for execution and implementation of judgment dated 29.11.2007, passed by Additional

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

2025:HHC:9268-DB

¶12

CWP No. 291 of 2025

¶13

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in case FIR No. 178 of 2007, under Section 302 IPC, in Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of 50,000/- and in₹ default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 1 year.

¶14

Case of the petitioner is that he had applied for 42 days parole on the ground to undertake urgent repairs of his house and to make necessary arrangements related to his marriage after consulting with his relatives.

¶15

Reply to the petition has been filed. Alongwith reply, communication dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure R-7) has been placed on record, whereby it has been informed that in view of non-recommendations of District Authorities, parole case of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶16

Petitioner remained undertrial prisoner for 6 months 1 day and as on 11.3.2025 Superintendent Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P. has reported detention of 19 years 5 months after deduction of parole period of 1 year 4 months and 11 days. 6. It is undisputed that petitioner was enlarged on parole for 15 times during his detention and no untoward incident has been reported and registered against him during his earlier parole period. This time petitioner had applied for parole vide application dated 1.2.2025 for doing repair of his house and also to make necessary arrangements related to his own marriage after consultation of his relatives.

¶17

3

¶18

2025:HHC:9268-DB

¶19

CWP No. 291 of 2025

¶20

According to report father of deceased (Aditya Sharma), has objected release of petitioner on parole on the ground that presence of petitioner in the village creates threat to life and property of the family of victim, who was murdered by the petitioner, and further that family of petitioner has already shifted to some other village after selling the property.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner for allowing the application, has placed reliance on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as coordinate Bench of this High Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2017) 15 SCC 55 ; judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed in CWP No. 5965 of 2023, titled as Retaish Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others; judgment dated 9.10.2023 in CWP No. 6562 of 2023, titled as Pushap Raj Vs. State of H.P. & others; judgment dated 23.5.2023 passed in CWP No. 1710 of 2023, titled as Bihari Lal Vs. State of H.P. & others; judgment dated 23.7.2021 passed in CWP No. 3516 of 2021, titled as Virender Kumar @ Bindu Vs. State of H.P. and others; and submitted that for similar circumstances petitioner is also entitled for release on parole and rejection of his application on the alleged apprehension of family of victim is not sustainable in absence of any material to substantiate the same, particularly when petitioner, at earlier point of time, while on parole, has not caused any harm to victim’s family or any other person.

¶22

It has also been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that after release on parole on previous occasions, petitioner had

¶23

4

¶24

2025:HHC:9268-DB

¶25

CWP No. 291 of 2025

¶26

surrendered before the concerned Jail Superintendent on expiry of term of parole and during that period, no adverse incident or report had been complained or reported against the petitioner.

¶27

Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of instructions 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 absence of any such incident while petitioner was on parole at previous occasion.

¶28

Taking into consideration material placed before us and pronouncements referred hereinabove, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that parole application filed by the petitioner has been rejected wrongly and erroneously.

¶29

Therefore, we set aside the rejection of the parole application filed by the petitioner referred in present matter, which was communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 25.10.2024, placed on record as Annexure R-7.

¶30

Accordingly, respondents are directed to extend benefit of parole to the petitioner for a period of 42 days on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of 50,000/-₹ ₹ each to the satisfaction of Superintendent Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P. The petitioner shall surrender before Superintendent Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open Air

¶31

5

¶32

2025:HHC:9268-DB

¶33

CWP No. 291 of 2025

¶34

Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P., immediately on expiry of 42 days of parole.

¶35

Petitioner shall not visit village Sakari, Post Office Rehan, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, where the family of victim is residing and family of petitioner has no property in the said village.

¶36

For extending benefit of parole, requisite appropriate order shall be issued by competent authority in accordance with law within 10 days from today. However, the petitioner’s parole shall be liable to be cancelled in case he breaches any of the conditions of the parole order and/or creates law and order problem, which shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of his similar prayers in the future.

¶37

The instant writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

¶38

(Vivek Singh Thakur),

¶39

Judge.

¶40

(Ranjan Sharma),

¶41

Judge.

¶42

3^rd April, 2025 (Keshav)

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kumar v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

State of Hp and Others Vs Shakun Chauhan

Rohit Saini and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Meenakshi Kaundal and Ors. Vs Anil Kaundal

Sardar Manjeet Singh Vs Guljit Singh Kochhar S/o Late S. Manohar Singh Kochha

Hrtc and Ors. Vs Ajmer Chand