Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision:27.5.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Another on 27 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1 2025:HHC:16369
CWP No. 11538 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 11538 of 2024
Date of decision:27.5.2025
Mohan Lal. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Another. ...Respondents.
Corum
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner. Mr. George and Mr.Vinod Kumar Soni, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Petitioner by invoking provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to release him on parole of 30 days because of rejection of his application submitted for parole, by the competent authority due to non- recommendation by concerned authority, which was communicated to him vide communication dated 13.11.2024, during pendency of the petition.
2. Petitioner is a convict and serving his sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 23.5.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in case FIR No.197 of 2015, registered under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹2,05,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 year and 1 month's simple imprisonment.
3. Petitioner, before conviction, had spent 2 years 14 days as an undertrial prisoner. After the date of sentence, i.e. 23.5.2023, he is in detention.
4. Petitioner vide application dated 5.6.2024 had applied for his temporary release on parole for 42 days on the ground that he was serving the sentence in a disciplined manner in Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P. He belongs to a poor family. His father has passed away, and he intends to meet his old mother and to do agricultural work to help his mother. Thus, his prayer to enlarge him on parole was twofold, i.e. for agricultural work and to meet his family.
5. Till the filing of the petition on 15.10.2024, no decision was taken and communicated to the petitioner with respect to his application for parole. After filing of the petition, respondents-State filed instructions dated 6.11.2024 alongwith documents, which indicates that the matter was referred by the Superintendent Model Central Jail, Kanda vide letter dated 11.6.2024 for verification/report of Superintendent of Police through District Magistrate, Shimla and till October, 2024, nothing was done by the 3 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 Superintendent of Police, Shimla. After the filing of the present petition, Superintendent of Police, Shimla, through Police Station, Rampur, carried out verification and recorded statements of the family of the victim, i.e. mother and wife of the victim, the statement of Pradhan and Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat as well as mother of the petitioner on 16.10.2024. In the statements, the family of the victim had expressed apprehension of damage from the release of the petitioner on parole, whereas Pradhan and Ward Panch of the Gram Panchayat had communicated no objection on behalf of the inhabitants of the village. As expected, the mother of the victim had also requested for enlarging the petitioner on parole. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police had submitted his report to the District Magistrate vide communication dated 29.10.2024, which was received in the Office of the Additional District Magistrate on 4.11.2024, and thereafter Additional District Magistrate vide communication dated 5.11.2024 had communicated non-recommendation of sanction of temporary release of the petitioner.
6. It is also apt to record that along with petitioner, Govind, Chaman Lal and Sunil Kumar were also convicted, and some of them had also applied for parole and for not enlarging them on parole, they have also approached the Court.
7. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, the petition for enlarging on parole filed by the co-convict was allowed. However, the present petition was kept pending as we do not find any provision dealing with the situation 4 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 where more than one convict for a heinous offence, like Section 302 IPC,is seeking parole simultaneously.In such a situation, whether all convicts can be enlarged on parole together or they are to be enlarged on parole turn by turn and on what basis, priority of temporary release is to be given are the questions which are not covered by any provision. Therefore, the present petition was not taken for consideration along with connected matters; however, during the pendency of the petition, certain information was called from the respondents-State, which has been placed on record.
8. It has been submitted on behalf of respondents-State that enlargement of convicts on parole is governed by The Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1969 (for short the "Rules, 1969") as well as provisions complied in Prison Manual, 2021, especially Chapter-XIX thereof and instructions issued from time to time to supplement the provisions of the Act, Rules and Jail Manual. Some discrepancies or ambiguities were also noticed in the procedure provided for temporary release in Rules, 1969 and Chapter-XIX of the Prison Manual dealing with parole and furlough, especially in Rule 3 of Rules, 1969 and para 19.18 of the Prison Manual. Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, 1969 reads as under:-
"3. (2) The Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application of a prisoner within 24 hours of its receipt, along with his 5 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 report, to the District Magistrate of the district to which the convict belongs. The District Magistrate before making any recommendations shall, with the consultation of the Superintendent of Police, verify the facts and grounds on which temporary release has been requested and shall also give their opinion whether the temporary release on parole/furlough is opposed on ground of prisoner's presence being dangerous to the security of State or prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. The District Magistrate shall complete the process of consultation with the Superintendent of Police and forward his recommendations within one week to the Inspector General of Prisons (Releasing Authority) together with report of Superintendent Jail, who shall decide the parole/ furlough case ordinarily within three days from the date of receipt of the recommendations of the District Magistrate.
In the event of the serious illness of a close relation, i.e. father, mother, brother, sister, spouse or child of the prisoner, the application should be processed more expeditiously. However, in the event of the death of a close relation, i.e. father, mother, brother, sister, spouse or child of the prisoner, the Superintendent of the Jail shall also be the competent authority to release a prisoner on parole for a period not exceeding fifteen days.
The Superintendent of Jail should release a prisoner on parole immediately on receipt of a death certificate, provided he satisfies himself independently within a reasonable time about the genuineness of the certificate. To satisfy himself, he will approach the concerned Police Station 6 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 by wireless and verify the truth of the death and the exact relationship of the prisoner with the deceased to ascertain the nearness of the relationship.
The Superintendent of Jail shall also take into consideration the prisoner's past criminal history and behaviour in the prison since admission as recorded in his case file and the likelihood of his not abusing the concession of parole, if granted.
The Superintendent of Jail shall, without fail, submit the case file of the prisoner to whom parole is thus granted to the Inspector General of Prisons, enabling him to ensure that the Superintendent has used proper discretion in effecting the release."
9. Para 19.18 of the Prison Manual reads as under:-
"19.18 The Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application so received to the Superintendent of police of the concerned district within 3 days of receipt of the application, along with the recommendation of the Superintendent of Prison for his report through the District Magistrate concerned. The Superintendent of Police shall send his report to the competent authority through the District Magistrate within 14 days from the date of receipt of the reference of the competent authority. The District Magistrate is allowed 3 days to forward the report of the Superintendent of Police, so received, to the competent authority. In case the police disagree with the proposed release of a prisoner on leave, reasons for such disagreement should be specified. The competent authority is allowed a period of 7 days to decide on 7 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 the application from the date of receipt of the report of the District Magistrate was received by him."
10. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1969 provides that the Superintendent of Jail shall forward a prisoner's application within 24 hours of its receipt,along with his report, to the District Magistrate of the District to which the convict belongs. In contrast, para 19.18 of the Prison Manual provides that the Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application to the Superintendent of Police through the District Magistrate within 3 days of receipt of the application, along with the recommendation of the Superintendent of Prison. It is not clear from para 19.18 in what context the Superintendent of Prisons has been referred separately. In Rule 3 of Rules, 1969, there is a reference to a report of the Superintendent of Jail, whereas in para 19.18, there is a reference to forwarding of the application by the Superintendent of Jail, but along with recommendations of the Superintendent of Prison. In case both the Superintendent of Jail and the Superintendent of Prison are the same authority, then the language should have been "along with his recommendations". But para 19.18 of the Prison Manual purports that the Superintendent of Jail and the Superintendent of Prison are two different authorities. The application is to be forwarded within 24 hours to the District Magistrate as per Rule 3 of the Rules, 1969, whereas para 19.18 of the Prison Manual provides forwarding of the said application within 3 days of receipt.
8 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024
11. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1969 provides that District Magistrate shall complete the procedure in consultation with the Superintendent of Police within one week and forward his recommendations to Inspector General of Prisons/Releasing Authority together with the report of Superintendent Jail and the concerned authority shall decide the parole case ordinarily within 3 days from the date of recommendation of District Magistrate. Whereas, para 19.18 of the Prison Manual provides that the Superintendent of Police shall submit his report to the competent authority through the District Magistrate within 14 days from the date of receipt of reference of the competent authority, and the District Magistrate shall forward the report within 3 days to the competent authority.
12. It is also noteworthy that in the process provided under para 19.18 of Prison Manual, reference to the District Magistrate is to be made by Superintendent of Jail and whereas competent authority to sanction release on parole or furlough provided under para 19.15 of the Prison Manual is Head of the Prison Department or any other competent authority as mentioned in the law/instructions in the subject and normal circumstances Director General of Prison Department is the Head of the Prison Department and thus is competent authority. As per para 19.18 of Prison Manual, Head of Department Director General of Prison, is not the authority making reference to the Superintendent of Police through District Magistrate, but it is Superintendent of Jail, therefore, when no reference is 9 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 received of the competent authority by District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police, then who and from which date 14 days are to be counted from the date of receipt of reference of the competent authority. As per Rule 3 of the Rules, 1969, the report is to be submitted within 7 days, whereas as per para 19.18 of the Prison Manual, the report is to be submitted within 17 days (14+3 days) to the competent authority. As per Rule 3 of the Rules, 1969 competent authority has to take a decision ordinarily within 3 days, whereas para 19.18 provides 7 days to decide the application.
13. In the present case application was submitted on 5.6.2024, which appears to have been referred to the District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police on 11.6.2024, i.e. within 5 days. Thereafter District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police took nearly 5 months to report back. It is not a case where the convict was residing in another District or another State or a distantly located part of India, but the jail is in Shimla, the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are from Shimla, and the convict is also a resident of District of Shimla. From the information available on record, submitted by the Department as well as apparent from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner including learned Additional Advocate General, there are huge number of cases where prisoners are compelled to approach the Court for no decisions on their applications for a considerable long time, sometimes 8-9 or 12 months. It has also come on record that a large number of prisoners 10 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 are released on parole only after the intervention of the Court, even though they are entitled to parole even otherwise in ordinary circumstances. But for the laxity or callous attitude or insensitive approach of the concerned Officers/authorities, convict prisoners are denied temporary release for the periods during which they need it desperately.
14. In para 19.12 of the Prison Manual, eligibility for first release on parole or furlough is clear on completion of 1 year of actual imprisonment, which should be counted from the date of admission to the prison. There were instances where persons were in detention as an undertrial prisoner for more than 1 year, sometimes for 4-5 years and thereafter they were convicted and admitted to jail as a convict prisoner. Undertrial prisoners are not entitled to parole or furlough, or any other temporary release, except interim bail granted by the Trial Court during the pendency of the Trial in extraordinary circumstances. Such convicts, when approached Superintendent Jail/competent authority, after conviction, for their enlargement on temporary release, but before expiry of 1 year from the date of conviction, their applications were and are rejected for non- completion of 1 year of actual imprisonment, counting such period from the date of admission to the prison. There may be a case where persons are convicted for 5 years imprisonment after spending 4 years as an undertrial prisoner. In such an event, for 4 years, such a person was not entitled to parole or furlough, and after conviction, he shall not be entitled to temporary 11 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 release or parole or furlough because he is not entitled to temporary release or parole until the completion of one year's imprisonment as a convict. Thus, he is effectively denied the temporary release/parole.
15. Realising the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 2.7.2024 passed in CWP No. 2733 of 2024, titled as Duni Chand Vs. State of H.P. and another, and judgment dated 8.4.2024 passed in CWP No. 1447 of 2024, titled as Meera Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others had directed the respondents to enlarge convicts/prisoners on parole after taking into consideration their period of detention as undertrial prisoners, as well as the period spent in other jails before their admission to the last prison, wherefrom the prisoner had applied for temporary release on parole.
16. No doubt, after passing of aforesaid judgments, instructions dated 13.8.2024 regarding parole of convicts were circulated by the State of Himachal Pradesh as under:-
"While recommending the first release of a convict on parole, in future, the following instruction should be followed:-
(1) "Temporary Release of convicted prisoners is to be considered after undergoing one year of actual imprisonment to be counted from the date of admission to prison."
17. Para 19.12 of the Prison Manual reads as under:-
12 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 "9.12 Subject to the above, eligibility for parole and furlough should be regulated as follows:
When due for first When due for When due for
release on parole second release subsequent
releases.
On completion of After completion After completion of one year of actual of six months of six months of imprisonment-- to actual actual be counted from the imprisonment -- to imprisonment, to be date of admission to be counted from counted from the prison. the date of his last date of his last return from return from leave.
parole.
18. Perusal of para 19.12 and instructions dated 13.8.2024, on the face of it, depicts that there is no change in the condition for determining the due date for eligibility for temporary release on parole or furlough for the first time. Though it has been communicated on behalf of respondents that the period spent as an undertrial prisoner, in continuity with detention before and after conviction, is being taken into consideration for a qualifying period of one year of actual imprisonment to determine eligibility for parole and furlough for the first time. However, there are instances noticed in various petitions that sometimes some Officers/authorities are not taking the period of detention as an undertrial prisoner for qualifying 1 year of actual imprisonment for the first release on parole.
19. It is apt to record that the aforesaid interpretation is based on a basic difference between the nature of detention as an undertrial prisoner 13 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 and a convict prisoner, and also the definition of prisoner in the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, applies.
20. Following definitions given in the Prison Manual, 2021 may be relevant:-
"(4) Civil prisoner" means any prisoner who is not committed to custody under a writ, warrant or order of any court or authority exercising criminal jurisdiction, or by order of a court martial and who is not a detenue;
...... ..... ...
(8) "Convict" means any prisoner under sentence of a court exercising criminal jurisdiction or court martial and includes a person detained in prison under the provisions of chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, (Central Act 2 of 1974) and the Prisoners Act of 1900 (Central Act 3 of 1900);
...... .... ....
(29) "Military Prisoner" means a prisoner convicted by court martial;
..... ..... .....
(34) "Prison" means any place used permanently or temporarily under the general or special orders of the State government for the detention of prisoners, under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and includes all land and buildings used thereto, but does not include;
(a) any place for the confinement of prisoners who are exclusively in the custody of the police;
14 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024
(b) any place specially appointed by the State government under section 541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882); and (35) "Prisoner" means any person confined in prison under the order of a competent authority;
(36) "Criminal Prisoner" means any prisoner duly committed to custody under the writ, warrant or order of any Court or authority exercising criminal jurisdiction, or by order of court- martial;
(37) "Convicted criminal Prisoner" means any criminal prisoner under sentence of a court or Court martial, and includes a person detained in prison under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or under the Prisoners Act, 1900;
...... ...... ....
(52) "Under-trial prisoner" means a person who has been committed to judicial custody pending investigation or trial by a competent authority."
21. Aforesaid definitions given in Prison Manual, 2021 give the definitions of various kinds of prisoners in general, but the definition at Sr. No. 35 of prisoner is also general, which covers all persons confined in prison under the order of the competent authority. However, for the applicability of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, the definition of prisoner to whom provision for temporary release on parole and furlough has been enacted, is to be governed as per the definition given in this Act. Section 2(g) of Himachal 15 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 defines a prisoner as under: -
"2(a) to (f)......
(g) "prisoner" means a person confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment."
22. It is also apt to record here that the undertrial prisoner is not a convict and thus not a prisoner confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment. An undertrial prisoner is not supposed to be detained in a regular jail, therefore, there is a provision for keeping undertrial prisoners and prisoners in different compartments/cells of the jail in case a separate jail is not in existence or available for convict prisoners and undertrial prisoners. There is a provision for providing judicial lockups at the places of trial. Due to the unavailability of such judicial lockups and also for serious difficulty in managing a large number of judicial lockups for detaining undertrial prisoners, undertrial prisoners are being kept in the prison, though separate from convicts.
23. Undertrial prisoners are, in fact, in judicial custody. They are committed to jail by handing them over to the Superintendent of Jail in their extended custody of the Court. They are detained in jail by the concerned authority under orders of the Court during the period of detention till conviction or acquittal or grant of bail on behalf of the Court, and, therefore, they are not treated to be prisoners, much less convict prisoners.
16 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024
24. Irrespective of the aforesaid difference between the convict prisoners and the undertrial prisoners, the fact remains that both are detained in prison. No doubt, a person may be considered to have been admitted to jail/prison only after conviction. Before that, he was an innocent person, but under detention for non-grant of bail, in the custody of the Court. However, he suffers trauma of detention like a convict prisoner. Therefore, he may not be entitled to parole or furlough like a convict prisoner, but after his conviction, his previous period of detention must be taken into consideration for the extension of the benefit of parole or furlough to him to avoid unnecessary hardship. Therefore, in Duni Chand's case (supra) Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed to consider the entire period of the custody, including the custody as an undertrial prisoner, for determining the eligibility for parole for the first time. To remove any doubt, it would be appropriate to carry out necessary corrections or issue a corrigendum explaining that to determine the date of completion of 1 year for applying first parole, the period of detention as an undertrial prisoner, followed by imprisonment as a convict prisoner without interruption, is to be taken into consideration. Needless to say, in case of enlargement on temporary bail or interim bail to an undertrial prisoner, the period for the aforesaid purpose shall be counted from the date of surrender by the undertrial prisoner after expiry of the period of interim/temporary bail.
17 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024
25. There is no provision, instructions or directions about the percentage of convict prisoners to extend the benefit of temporary release on parole or furlough at a particular point of time. Similarly, there is also a vacuum with respect to eligibility of co-convicts, particularly for commission of a heinous crime, to be extended the benefit of parole or furlough simultaneously or turn by turn, one after another. There may be circumstances where the simultaneous temporary release of such prisoners may give a wrong impression to society, but the possibility cannot be ruled out that extraordinary circumstances may warrant for extension of benefits of temporary release on parole or furlough to all of them or more than one of them. In this regard, also, proper necessary provisions are required to be made.
26. The present petition was kept pending, and the co-convict was allowed to be enlarged on temporary release on parole; however, by now their parole period may have ended, and they may have surrendered. If so, then the petitioner shall also be extended the benefit of temporary release for 30 days on usual terms with the additional condition of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Jail. In this regard, the competent authority shall issue a final order within 10 days from today, and in case the co-convict is still on parole, then within 10 days after expiry of the parole period of the co-convict, with the condition that no co-convict is on 18 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 temporary release during that period, unless extraordinary circumstances warrant so.
27. It is also undisputed fact that because of lacuna in the system, delay in deciding the application, absence of standardized parole procedure in the State, lack of proper guidance and training, insensitive approach of the concerned authorities, delay in deciding the applications for parole is resulting into flood of Writ Petitions in the Courts in parole matters, causing wastage of valuable time and energy of the Courts, State as well as stakeholders and also causing wastage of public exchequer and such a situation is causing unnecessary overburden on the Courts working, leading to delay in deciding other matters of much more importance. Therefore, we are constrained to issue following directions inter alia amongst other directions issued and observations made herein above:-
(i) Taking into consideration the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2017) 15 SCC 55, we consider it fit to observe that there should be an unambiguous, meaningful provision for considering eligibility for enlarging prisoners on parole, including eligibility for applying for parole for the first time.
The denial of the extension of the benefit of parole should not be based upon vague and general objections communicated casually, but there must be substance or material to sustain 19 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 the reasons for not recommending the case of the prisoners for release on parole. Mere apprehension without any substance or material should not be made basis for denying the benefit of temporary release on parole. The denial or non- recommendation should be based on a credible assertion, including a real cause or threat warranting non-
recommendation and denial of the benefit of temporary release.
(ii) Necessary amendments/corrections be carried out and corrigendum be issued explaining that to determine the date of completion of 1 year for applying first parole, the period of detention as an undertrial prisoner, followed by imprisonment as a convict prisoner without interruption, is to be taken into consideration. Needless to say, in case of enlargement on temporary bail or interim bail to an undertrial prisoner, the period for the aforesaid purpose shall be counted from the date of surrender by the undertrial prisoner after expiry of the period of interim/temporary bail.
(iii) The respondents should develop a mechanism to promulgate, monitor, revise and enforce compliance of relevant provisions, Jail Manual, H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act and Rules framed 20 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 thereunder, especially with respect to the time frame prescribed for process, considering and deciding the applications for temporary release.
(iv) Respondents are also directed to undertake exercise to remove discrepancies and ambiguities among various provisions contained in the Act, Rules framed thereunder, as well as the Jail Manual, particularly with respect to the manner of processing of applications and time provided to the concerned authority to perform various acts on its part.
(v) There should be a strong mechanism to ensure adherence to the time schedule prescribed for processing, considering and deciding the applications for extension of benefits of temporary release. Failure, for no plausible sufficient cause, must invite stringent adverse action against the erring officials/officers. Necessary amendments in the Act, Rules and Jail Manual be incorporated.
(vi) Provisions with respect to the percentage of prisoners permissible to be enlarged on temporary release should be incorporated in the relevant provisions, the Act, Rules and Jail Manual.
(vii) There is also a vacuum with respect to eligibility of co-convicts, particularly for commission of a heinous crime, 21 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024 to be extended the benefit of parole or furlough simultaneously or turn by turn, one after another. There may be circumstances where the simultaneous temporary release of such prisoners may give a wrong impression to society, but the possibility cannot be ruled out that extraordinary circumstances may warrant for extension of benefits of temporary release on parole or furlough to all of them or more than one of them. In this regard, also, proper necessary provisions are required to be made.
(viii) Provisions providing a mechanism for consideration of applications of each convict during his detention as a prisoner for extension of the benefit of temporary release must be provided by incorporating a suitable provision. An application/software may be developed for regulating, receiving, processing, considering and deciding the applications for temporary release.
(ix) A mechanism to track the applications for parole should be developed.
(x) Monthly statements of pendency of applications for parole submitted by prisoners, along with their status, must be issued and considered by the competent authority to ensure the timely disposal of parole applications.
22 2025:HHC:16369 CWP No. 11538 of 2024
28. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents on or before 15th July, 2025.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
(Rakesh Kainthla), Judge.
27th May 2025 (Keshav)