Rangila Ram Vs. State of HP Cr. MP No.1454 of 2024 in Cr.MP(M) No.141 of 2024 03.11.2025 Present: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. B.N. Sharma, Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Addl. Advocates General with Mr. R.P. Singh and Mr. Manish Thakur, Dy. Advocates General, for the respondent/State. Ms. Chetna Thakur, Advocate, for the complainant. Bail, in the case at hand, had been granted to the non-applicant/accused/petitioner vide order dated 19.01.2024. The non-applicant/accused, in the case at hand, was previously employed in CRPF and is presently retired personnel residing at the address mentioned in the cause title. Aggrieved by the bail, the complainant has filed the present application for cancellation of the bail. The specific grievance of the applicant is that vide order dated 19.01.2024, the bail had been granted to the non- applicant/accused-Rangila Ram after imposition of certain conditions. One of the conditions mentioned therein is that “he shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and.” In this respect, it is contended that after grant of bail the accused had visited the house of the applicant on multiple occasions and had threatened the applicant with dire consequences, if in case the applicant does not withdraw the case. It is further contended that the complaint in this respect had even been made on Mukhya Mantri Sewa Sankalp Helpline. The complainant further submits that she is an unmarried woman residing with her old aged mother and there is no one else to look after her. A status report has been filed and from a perusal of the same, it is evident that the statement of the applicant and the accused-Rangila Ram, in the case at hand, had been recorded. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the non-applicant/accused was working as a Driver in the CRPF. On account of his family problems, he had sought voluntary retirement in the month of August 2024. In his statement he has further stated that the applicant has been wrongly making allegations against him. Previously also in the year 2023-24 allegations of rape had been foisted by the applicant against the accused, which were found to be false, frivolous and baseless. He has further categorically submitted that he had never ever threatened the applicant with any dire consequence, as is being alleged. In her statement recorded by the Police appended along with the status report, allegations of threat being meted out to the applicant have been reiterated. Other than the applicant, none has corroborated the allegations of threat being meted out to her. A detailed reply to the application filed for cancellation of bail has been submitted by the non- applicant/accused. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that previously a FIR bearing No.20 of 2023 under Sections 376(n) and 506 of IPC dated 08.05.2023 had been got registered by the applicant at Mahila Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, HP, against the present non- applicant/accused. At that time the accused had come on 01.05.2023 for attending the Namkaran Ceremony of his daughter’s child, which was scheduled for 04.05.2023. In the said FIR, the accused/non-applicant had applied for the anticipatory bail vide Cr.MP(M)No.1121 of 2023, which had been granted on 19.05.2023. Herein again applicant had filed an application for cancellation of bail vide Cr.MP(M) No.1394 of 2023. The same was dismissed on 11.08.2023, copy of the same is appended along with the same as AnnexureP3. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the Legal Aid Counsel, who had appeared for the applicant had categorically asserted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant cannot be taken on face value. The application for cancellation of bail then had been dismissed, as parties were alleged to be entering into compromise qua FIR No.20/2023 dated 08.05.2023. However, subsequently the quashing application filed on the basis of an alleged compromise, which was yet to take place had been withdrawn as the applicant had backtracked. Other than the aforesaid, it is alleged in the reply that a FIR bearing No.14/20 under Section 376 IPC had been foisted by the applicant against another Army personnel named Vinod Kumar at Mahila Police Station Mandi, HP. Besides the aforesaid, in the reply it is mentioned that previously a complaint had been filed by the applicant/complainant against the non- applicant/accused in PS Sarkaghat, which was compromised on 25.02.2022, as consequence whereof, the complaint was withdrawn. In 2023 a complaint with respect to theft by the accused/non-applicant in the case at hand had been filed by the applicant before the Police Station Sarkaghat. In this respect, it has been categorically averred that in the aforesaid backdrop, an application had been filed by the applicant against the accused qua threats being meted out to the applicant, which the Police had found to be completely false and baseless. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/accused has drawn the attention of this Court to a Resolution dated 28.01.2024 filed along with the present reply, whereupon on a complaint made by the wife of the non- applicant/accused before the Gram Panchayat the concerned Gram Panchayat had resolved to take action against the applicant for filing false complaints against the accused. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that the allegations made for cancellation of bail granted by this Court on 19.01.2024 remain unsubstantiated. Other than the statement of the applicant, no other evidence corroborating the allegations made have been placed on record. Besides the aforesaid, one cannot lose sight of her previous history of complaints made against the non-applicant/accused. Moreover, in this respect, the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat at the behest of the wife of the non-applicant/accused to take appropriate necessary legal action against the applicant cannot be lost sight of. Previously also in the year 2023, an FIR bearing No.20/23 filed under Section 376(n) and 506 of IPC dated 08.05.2023 has been registered against the accused at the behest of the applicant. In the same, the applicant had first sought to get the same quashed by compromising the matter with the accused, however, qua the same she had backtracked later on. During the pendency of the petition filed for quashing of the aforesaid FIR, the applicant had made a similar application for cancellation of bail granted by the Court. Though the application so filed was not considered on merit, however, order dated 11.08.2023, passed in the previous application bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1394 of 2023 filed for cancellation of bail granted in FIR No.20 of 2023 dated 08.05.2023 assumes importance in light of the statement recorded therein. The learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the complainant, had categorically stated to the Court that the conduct of the present applicant is such that she cannot be taken on face value. Other than the aforesaid, applicant has also filed a case under Section 376 IPC bearing FIR No.14 of 2020 against the other Army Personnel named Vinod Kumar. In the light of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed being devoid of merit. The present proceedings are closed. (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 03rd November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)