Disposed¶10

Aahi Chand v. the State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Jul 2026CWP/12012/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, CWP No.12012 of 2026, decided 20.07.2026, Sandeep Sharma J. (oral): writ petition seeking direction to decide petitioner's application/representation (Annexure P3) for extension of parole granted vide order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P1), expiring 26.7.2026; approach to Director General of Police unanswered; petition disposed of with direction to decide application expeditiously, preferably within three days; no reply called from respondents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide the petitioner's application for extension of time (Annexure P3) expeditiously, preferably within three days, taking note of the circumstances indicated in the application. ¶10

Aahi Chand Vs the State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the petitioner's application/representation (Annexure P3) seeking extension of the parole granted vide order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P1), expiring on 26.7.2026.

¶4

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to ensure that the application for extension of time (Annexure P3) filed by the petitioner is decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three days, and the authority concerned shall take note of the circumstances indicated in the application.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the nature of the proposed order, coupled with the statement given by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Court found no necessity to call for a reply from the respondents.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — CWP No.12012 of 2026, decided 20.7.2026 (Sandeep Sharma, Judge, oral): Petitioner Aahi Chand, whose parole granted vide order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P1) was expiring on 26.7.2026 and who was unable to surrender on the stipulated date owing to circumstances detailed in his application, had sought extension from the Director General of Police without his prayer being considered. He therefore sought a direction to respondents (State of Himachal Pradesh and others) to decide his application/representation (Annexure P3) for extension. On the Additional Advocate General's statement that the request, if not already decided, would be dealt with expeditiously, the Court dispensed with a reply and disposed of the petition, together with pending applications, if any, directing respondents to ensure the Annexure P3 application is decided expeditiously, preferably within three days, duly noting the circumstances indicated therein.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.12012 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.7.2026

¶3

____________________________________________________________ Aahi Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶4

By way of instant petition, a very innocuous prayer has been made by the petitioner to issue direction to respondents to decide his application/representation (Annexure P3), whereby he has sought extension of parole granted to him vide order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P1).

¶5

2. Since parole granted vide aforesaid order is expiring on 26.7.2026 and on account of peculiar facts and circumstances as detailed in the application, petitioner is not in a position to surrender on the date given in the order granting parole (Annexure P1), he has approached the Director General of Police to extend his parole, but such prayer of him has not been considered, as such, he is compelled to approach this court in the instant proceedings.

¶6

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

¶7

-2-

¶8

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of respondents, states that request for extension of time, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

¶9

4. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed, coupled with the statement given by learned Additional Advocate General, there appears to be no necessity to call for reply from respondents and as such, same is disposed of with the direction to respondents to ensure that application for extension of time (Annexure P3), filed by the petitioner, is decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three days, ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful, shall take note of the circumstances as indicated in the application.

¶10

5. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

¶11

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶12

July 20, 2026 manjit

Aahi Chand v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aahi Chand v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs State

Satish Patial Vs Hoshiar Singh

State Vs Vijay Kumar

M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited Vs Sanjeev Kumar Naik

Dildar Ali Batt and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Brijeshwari Apple Agency Baa Fuit Company and Another Vs Ajeet Singh