The petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioner's counsel.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 299 of 2026
Date of Decision : 17.9.2026
Mukesh Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. ....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
| For the Petitioners | : Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent No.1/State | : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. |
| For Respondent No.2 | : Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. |
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that he wants to withdraw the present petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, so also the pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
17th September, 2026 (Chander)
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Mukesh Sharma
State of H.P.
anr.
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
