IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5790 of 2010. Decided on: 18.10.2010 Devinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of the present writ petition filed by the petitioner against the rejection of his application by respondent No.2 for being released on parole. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that his application, dated 3.6.2010, for releasing him on parole has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure R-5) on the ground of his surrendering after 13 days at the time of his previous parole. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Director General of Prisons to consider the copy of the judgment, dated 1.6.2010, ______________________________ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 vide which the petitioner was acquitted of the charge in regard to his overstay and as such he prays that the said judgment may be considered by the Director General of Prisons and he may pass appropriate orders accordingly on the application of the petitioner. 5. In regard to overstay for 13 days, the petitioner/convict was acquitted of the charge framed against him for commission of offence punishable under Section 9 read with Section 8(2) of H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968. It is clear that while passing the impugned order by Director General of Prisons, he had not considered the fact that the petitioner/convict was acquitted of the charge framed against him for overstay by the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan vide judgment, dated 1.6.2010. 6. Accordingly, Director General of Prisons is required to consider the copy of the judgment passed by the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 1.6.2010, and he shall also consider as to whether the application filed by the petitioner/convict for releasing him on parole deserves to be allowed or not. 7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a copy of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.978 of 2010, titled Raj Mohammad versus State of H.P. and others, dated 26.6.2010, wherein time was given to 3 take action on the application of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of production of the copy of the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this court in Raj Mohammad’s case (supra), the said prisoner Raj Mohammad was released accordingly on parole in spite of the charge of overstay. 8. While passing the order on the application of the petitioner/convict, the Director General of Prisons shall consider the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, dated 1.6.2010. He shall also consider the facts of the present case and the facts of Raj Mohammad’s case (supra) and shall thereafter pass appropriate orders within 15 days from the date the certified copy of this order is placed before the Director General of Prisons by the petitioner’s counsel. The learned Deputy Advocate General shall also send a copy of this order to the Director General of Prisons for compliance. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. October 18, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge