Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 23.12.2024 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 23 December, 2024
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
2024:HHC:15865-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Civil Writ Petition No.12197 of 2024
Decided on : 23.12.2024
Amir Khan .....Petitioner
(Lodged in Model Central Jail
Kanda, District Shimla.)
Versus
State of H.P. and others ....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate.
For the respondents/ : Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate
General.
State
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, petitioner has approached this Court for enlarging him on parole for non-compliance of his application for parole which has been rejected by the Competent Authority and communicated to him through communication dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure-E) issued from the Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Petitioner has been convicted in case FIR No.22 of 2020 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. and he is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for life.
...2...
2024:HHC:15865-DB
3. In response to the present petition, respondents have filed instructions dated 25.11.2024, placed on record on 28.11.2024 alongwith custody certificate, reports of District Administration/Police.
4. It is apparent from the instructions placed on record that earlier, the case of the petitioner was recommended for parole on the basis of recommendations of the competent authority of District Hamirpur, H.P., however, at that time statement of victim's family was not recorded, therefore, matter was sent to competent authority of Una as victim's family belongs to District Una, H.P. On the basis of objection raised by the victim's family competent authority of District Una, had not recommended the case of the petitioner for enlarging him on parole.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner intends to meet his family and parents, who are residing in district Hamirpur and never intends to visit District Una, H.P. or the place where the victim's family is residing and the concerned authorities may impose conditions upon the petitioner not to visit District Una or the place where victim's family is residing.
6. Taking into consideration the non-recommendation report of the concerned District Authority, petitioner's case for parole has been rejected by the Competent Authority.
7. It is noticeable that competent authority of District Hamirpur recommended releasing the petitioner on temporarily on parole as his family is residing in District Hamirpur, H.P. ...3...
2024:HHC:15865-DB
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR was registered in the year 2020 and during his trial he remained in custody as under-trial prisoner and thereafter he is serving sentence and at present petitioner had completed 4 years 8 months and 24 days of his sentence till 25.11.2024
9. 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. 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.
...4...
2024:HHC:15865-DB
10. Taking into consideration the 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.
11. Accordingly, rejection communicated to the petitioner through communication dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure-E) 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 on or before 31.12.2024 to ensure enlargement of the petitioner on parole after completing all necessary formalities, including furnishing of bonds etc. immediately thereafter.
12. 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 surrendering 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.
13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to the competent authority to impose condition upon the petitioner restraining him not to visit in district Una or the place where victim's family is residing. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed ...5...
2024:HHC:15865-DB of. 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 copy, but, if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court or otherwise.
( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
November 23, 2024 Judge.
(ravinder)