Decided On: 16.09.2024 vs State Of H. P. & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 13884 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 16.09.2024 vs State Of H. P. & Ors on 16 September, 2024

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja

                                                                              2024:HHC:8593




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                             CWP No. 8612 of 2024




                                                                            .
                                             Decided on: 16.09.2024





    Arun Kumar                                               ...Petitioner
                                            Versus





    State of H. P. & Ors.                                              ...Respondents

    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting? 1        No.



    For the Petitioner :            Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate.

    For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G., with Mr. I. N.
                        rMehta, Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sharma,

                         Addl. A.Gs., Ms. Sharmila Patial and Mr.
                         Navlesh Verma, Addl. A.Gs.

    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

By medium of this petition, the petitioner has sought

parole of 28 days.

2. The reply filed by the respondents in the open Court

is taken on record. The only objection raised by the respondents

for denying the petitioner's parole was that on the previous

occasion when the petitioner was on parole, he had scuffle with

the victim's family who, in fact, is a next door neighbour.

However, it is stated that in case the petitioner is ready to go to

his ancestral village Gho in Pathankot (Punjab), then the

respondents have no objection to the release of the petitioner on

parole.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

2024:HHC:8593

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions,

states that his client is ready and willing to go to his ancestral

.

village Gho at Pathankot and would not visit the village Indora.

His statement is taken on record.

4. Now that the petitioner has categorically represented

that he would be going to his ancestral village Gho at Pathankot,

we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing:-

(i) the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 28 days subject to his furnishing

personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local

sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent.

(i) the petitioner shall not visit village Indora and

shall confine himself during his stay on parole to village Gho at Pathankot, where he shall report to the Ward Member/President/Vice-President of the village

on every Friday.

5. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms, so also pending applications, if any.

                                          (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                                   Judge


                                              (Sushil Kukreja)
         16th September, 2024                     Judge
                (sanjeev)