IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 1214 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.2.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ved Prakash Yadav ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to raise all issues as have been raised in the instant petition at the time of framing of charges. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner. 2. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the observation that trial court at the time of framing of charge shall not be influenced by the observation, if any, made by this Court vide judgment dated 29.7.2016 passed in CrMMO No. 53 of 2015, titled as Ved 2 Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., with regard to complicity, if any, of the petitioner in the alleged offence, especially when it is not in dispute that afore judgment was passed during the pendency of the investigation. Needless to say, learned trial Court while hearing the parties at the time of framing of charges shall also take note of the subsequent developments including memo of understanding, if any, inter-se complainants and the persons, who have received the money. February 25, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge