Kuljeet Singh @ Raja Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

2025:HHC:26502

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 9501 of 2025 Reserved on: 29.07.2025 Date of Decision: 06.08.2025

¶4

Kuljeet Singh @ Raja ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Coram
*Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthl*	a,*Judge.*
*Whether approved for reporting?*¹	*No.*
For the Petitioner :	M/s Karan Kapoor and Nitish, Advocates.
For the Respondents/State. :	Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶6

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶7

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2.

¶8

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment pay a fine of ₹40,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for four years. He has

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

2025:HHC:26502

¶12

completed more than 10 years, 8 months, and 02 days in jail on the date of issuance of the custody certificate (Annexure R-2/2). He applied for a grant of parole on 04.02.2025 for agricultural purposes. The application was rejected because he (petitioner) is involved in F.I.R. 45 of 2016 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. He is a notorious criminal and habitual offender, and the possibility of committing other offences cannot be ruled out. The petitioner had not completed the six months from the last surrender as required under the provision of para 19.12 of the H.P. Prison Manual, 2021. The rejection of the application is not justified. The parole was granted to the petitioner earlier by the Court. The petitioner has completed more than 6 months from the date of his surrender, and his application can be considered at this stage. Hence, the petition.

¶13

3 The petition is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the application was premature because it was filed before the expiry of six months from the date of his surrender of his last parole, i.e. 04.11.2024. This is contrary to the provisions of Para 19.12 of the H.P. Prison Manual, 2021. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶14

3

¶15

2025:HHC:26502

¶16

I have heard M/s Karan Kapoor and Nitish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

¶17

Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner's application for parole was wrongly rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual criminal. The period of six months has expired. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole.

¶18

6 Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had applied for parole before the expiry of six months from the date of surrender of the last parole. This is contrary to 19.12 of H.P. Prison Manual, 2021. There is no infirmity in the order of rejection. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶19

7 I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶20

19.12 of the H.P. Prison Manual, 2021, provides that the convict shall be entitled to parole after completion of six months of actual imprisonment to be counted from the date of his last return

¶21

4

¶22

2025:HHC:26502

¶23

from parole. It is undisputed that the petitioner had surrendered from the last parole on 04.11.2024. He applied for parole on 04.02.2025. Therefore, the period of six months had not lapsed from the date of the surrender, and the condition specified in para 19.12 of H.P. Prison Manual, 2021, was not satisfied. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the rejection of the petitioner’s application for parole.

¶24

It was submitted that para 19.12 of H.P. Prison Manual, 2021 does not talk about the filing of the application and only about the release. This is hair-splitting, because the release is dependent upon the filing of the application and not dehors the same.

¶25

Para 19.12 of the Prison Manual is to be read with the timelines provided in the Act and the Rules. This para is quite clear that a convict becomes entitled to a second release after the completion of six months, which means that the convict cannot be released before the expiry of six months. If a person cannot be released, there is no question of applying for parole. Further, the application did not say that the parole was sought after the six months; rather, the application was filed in the present tense, stating that the petitioner intended to go on parole; therefore, the

¶26

5

¶27

2025:HHC:26502

¶28

submission that the application for parole of the petitioner was wrongly rejected cannot be accepted.

¶29