Disposed¶11

Vikram @ Beparwah v. the State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC22 Jun 2026CWP/9977/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, CWP No.9977 of 2026, decided 22.06.2026 by Sandeep Sharma, J. Life convict's parole application dated 27.09.2024 pending consideration; writ under Article 226 seeking mandamus to decide it; respondents represented by Additional Advocates General; petition disposed of with direction to decide application expeditiously within six weeks. Keywords: parole application pending, life imprisonment, Article 226, direction to decide, six weeks, no reply called for, no impugned order, no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending application dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. ¶11

Vikram @ Beparwah Vs the State of Hp — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.9977 of 2026

¶3

Date of Decision: 22.06.2026

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Vikram @ Beparwah …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Through, instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending application dated 27.09.2024(Annexure P-1).

¶6

Having regard to the nature of dispute and prayer made in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondent, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General.

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Parveen Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment and is lodged in Lajpat Rai District and Open Air Correctional Home Dharamshala for the last five years, had applied for parole vide application dated 27.09.2024, but till date, same has not been considered.

¶10

Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that aforesaid application, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

¶11

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending application dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a

¶12

period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly.

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶14

June 22, 2026 (shankar)

Vikram @ Beparwah v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram @ Beparwah 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lucky Sharma Vs State of Hp

Kartar Singh Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Another

Virender Singh Rana Vs State of Hp

Arun Kumar Vs State of Hp

Vikram Gautam and Ors. Vs State of Hp

Mohinder Singh Vs Tijender Paul