IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 700 of 2025 Decided on 21st August 2025 Sohan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Sunil Kumar Banyal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of Annexure P-3, in terms whereof, his application for his transfer from Model Central Jail, Nahan, to the Jail at Dharamshala has been rejected by the authority concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason as to why the petitioner is seeking his transfer is that there are certain cases of NDPS pending against him at Dharamshala and it is difficult for him to physically travel from Nahan to Dharamshala to attend these cases on account of his 2 health grounds. Therefore, he says that the petitioner has prayed that he be transferred to Dharamshala and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Authority while dismissing his application. 3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the respondent and has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General further stated that there already is overcrowding in the Open Air Jail at Dharamshala. The Jail has a capacity for 355 prisoners, whereas, in terms of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Jail, presently 482 prisoners are lodged in the Jail, which obviously indicates overcrowd. Besides, 509 prisoners are lodged in Lala Lajpat Rai, District and Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh against a 3 capacity of 355 prisoners. He referred to the contents of the reply and stated that the construction of new Jails at Mandi, Kullu, Kalpa and Nalagarh has already being undertaken. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also pointed out that the petitioner has undergone a surgery as is mentioned in the reply for Gall Bladder Polyps and currently he is doing fine and is maintaining good health. He further submitted that video conference facilities are now available for the purpose of trial and evidence and therefore also, obviously there is no occasion for the physical travelling of the petitioner from Nahan to Dharamshala until and unless it is unavoidable. On these basis, he submits that as it is not feasible to transfer the petitioner to Dharamshala, presently. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 6. Though, the reasons mentioned in the order, in terms whereof, the application of the petitioner has been rejected are not very convincing but, a perusal of the reply demonstrates that there is overcrowding at the Jails in 4 Dharashala. 7. In the light of this fact and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is being medically looked after well at Nahan because there is no complaint of his that he is not being provided good medical treatment at Nahan and further as now video conference is available for the purpose of trial etc., this Court sees no reason to issue a mandamus to the respondents to transfer the petitioner from Nahan to Dharamshala forthwith. However, it is observed that after the construction of the new jails and after they become functional, the petitioner may approach the authorities afresh for his transfer to any such Jail, which application be decided by the authorities own uninfluenced by the order earlier passed. Petition stands disposed of so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 21, 2025 (Vinod)