IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7232 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.12.2010 Ravish Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and ors. .....Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The petitioner is a life convict undergoing sentence and has been in custody for the last about 3 years. There is a letter of District Magistrate, Annexure R-2, along with reply to the petition, filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, relevant portion of which reads as follows: “ In this regard, as per detailed inquiry report received from the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur vide letter No. 1162 dated 15-01-2010, the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur has reported that it cannot be guaranteed whether the said convict will surrender before the Prison authorities after availing parole or not and has not recommended him to be released on parole. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Keeping in view the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur, convict Ravish Kumar S/o Purshottam Ram R/o village Kothi, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur (H.P.) is not recommended to be released on parole applied for by him. Copy of letter No. 1162 dated 15-01-2010 of the Superintendent of Police Kinnaur along with its enclosures is enclosed herewith favour of further necessary action please.” 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar case, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 981 of 2010, titled Anil Kumar vs. The State of H.P. and others, decided on 17.6.2010, reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 910, has observed that this is not the ground, on which the application for release on parole can be rejected and directions were given to DGP (Prisons) to reconsider the case of the petitioner in that case. Applying the observations made in that case, the case of the petitioner be sent to respondent No.2 for reconsideration in view of the directions given in the case, referred to above, who shall consider the case afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 3. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. Copy dasti. ( V.K. Ahuja ), December 16, 2010 Judge (pankaj)