IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12012 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.7.2026 ____________________________________________________________ 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): 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). 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. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 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. 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. 5. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 20, 2026 manjit