LAWS(HPH)-2022-5-102

SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On May 19, 2022
SUNIL KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 27/8/2020 (Annexure P-2), whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-convict (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') for grant of parole came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the aforesaid order dtd. 27/8/2020.

(2.) For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that the petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for life for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 302, 120-B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 vide judgment dtd. 27/3/2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, in Sessions Trial No.II-VII-13, as a consequence of which the petitioner at present is lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.

(3.) Petitioner has already undergone sentence of almost eight years and five months till date and during his stay in the jail, he has already earned two years one month and four days remission period. On 19/5/2020, vide Annexure P-1, petitioner applied for parole to Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as DG (Prisons). He stated in the application that he used to reside in rented house with family at EWS 218 Rakkar Colony, Tehsil and Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. and at present his brother and sister-in-law reside at Neelaghat, Ward No.11, Tehsil and Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. He stated that his brother, sister-in-law and sister are unable to meet him on account of poverty and as such he be granted parole for 28 days. However, vide communication dtd. 27/8/2020, issued under the signatures of DG (Prisons) petitioner was informed that his prayer for parole is rejected on account of non-recommendation by District Magistrate.