Parnika Sharma

In the present case, the petitioner was allegedly involved in the illegal possession of narcotics. As a result, an FIR was filed by the Police. The petitioner was then arrested under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. He was also charged under the Motor Vehicle Act. Subsequently, the petitioner

The Petitioner in the case of, Partap Singh and others v State of Himachal Pradesh, was allegedly involved in the illegal possession of drugs. The police filed an FIR and arrested the petitioner under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act for the same. Subsequently, the petitioner prayed for Anticipatory Bail. The

In the case, of Karan and another vs State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioners have invoked Article 21 of Right to life, through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The plea sought safety to the petitioners’ life and personal liberty after they married against their parent’s wishes.The

In this case, the police took the petitioners into custody after they had a physical fight with the Respondents. This fight resulted resulting in physical injuries. Subsequently, the Respondents filed an FIR. The petitioners were out on interim protection. The petitioners approached the Court to make the order absolute. Brief

In the present case, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petition was in response to a breach in their right to life and liberty under Article 21. The plea sought their safety after they married against their parent’s wishes. Brief Facts of the

In the present case, the petitioners filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. They were in custody for allegedly committing offences against the complainants under sections of IPC and ST/SC Act. The complainants were also accused under different sections of the said Acts. After looking into the facts

In this case of Dharmender Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., the Petitioner filed a writ of Mandamus before the Court. The main contention was that he is eligible for appointment by the state government. This posed the issue of whether a waiting list candidate should get the post

In this case, the accused (herein, petitioners) were charged for the offence of grievous hurt. The arrest occurred after hurting the respondents, following a heated argument. The petitioners later filed for interim bail. The respondents opposed the bail as they feared further hurt. Brief Facts of the Case  While one

In this case, (Sh. Dheeraj Verma vs State of H.P. and ors), the petitioner was serving life imprisonment. He filed a petition to extend his parole/release period. He also claimed the plea on the grounds of continuing his job. Also, he pled that he recover the losses authorised under the scheme

In this case, the petitioners filed a bail petition for anticipatory bail. The Court allowed the same. Considering the facts of the case, the case concerns the arrest of the petitioners for allegedly harassing the complainant. Brief Facts of the Case  The case deals with the petitioners, Karan (husband) and