IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No.106 of 2025 with Cr.MP (M) No.93 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP (M) No.106 of 2025 Indu Bala ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …....Respondents _____________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No.93 of 2024 Indu Bala ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, for the private respondents. Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above captioned petitions, this Court, after clubbing the same heard them jointly and are being disposed of vide the common order. 2. By way of instant petitions filed under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner/complainant for cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 2.08.2024 passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1592 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No.1434 of 2024, in case FIR No. 65 of 2024, dated 01.07.2024, under Section 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST(Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and Sections 352 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner/complainant, as has been highlighted in both the petitions and further canvassed by Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, is that after grant of interim bail vide order(s) dated 04.07.2024/22.07.2024, whereby this Court, after having taken the private respondents into custody, enlarged them on bail , subject to certain conditions, bail petitioners have flouted the bail conditions and as such, bail granted in their favour deserves to be cancelled. One of the conditions, as imposed at the time of grant of interim bail, was that private respondents would not contact the petitioner/complainant either personally or through any other mode of communication during the pendency of the case. Allegedly, Ms. Deepika Sharma, one of the bail petitioners, telephonically contacted the complainant and extended threats. At first instance, complainant approached police with regard to extension of threats, which after conducting the investigation, found the allegation of telephonic call to the complainant to be correct. 4. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State as well as private respondents have filed status report/reply. Respondent-State has stated that during investigation, it has emerged that one of the bail petitioner, namely Deepika Sharma, made a telephonic call to the complainant and other co-accused have also extended threats. Private respondents have specifically refuted aforesaid allegation and have stated that Ms. Deepika Sharma had made a telephonic call to the complainant to persuade her to settle the matter, as she is next door neighbour to them, but at no point of time extended any threats. They have further stated that in the garb of FIR, in which they are on bail, complainant herein has been filing false complaints against them, as a result thereof, they are finding it difficult to reside in the village. 5. True it is that at the time of grant of interim bail, this Court had imposed a condition that till disposal of the case, bail petitioners/private respondents shall not contact the complainant, but since interim orders dated 04.07.2024/22.07.2024 have merged into the final order dated 02.08.2024, whereby this Court, while disposing of the Cr.MP(M) No.1434 of 2024 alongwith connected matter, confirmed the bail and imposed following conditions:- “a. they shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b. they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. they shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. they shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.” 6. Though, Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel representing the complainant, attempted to argue that condition No.3 of order dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court in aforesaid cases has been flouted by the private respondents because they tried to contact the complainant with a view to prevail upon her to withdraw the cases, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the complainant for the reason that at no point of time private respondents have prevented the complainant from lodging any complaint. Rather, status report itself suggests that after disposal of bail petitions, as detailed hereinabove, complainant had lodged two FIRs against the private respondents under the SC & ST Act. Had the private respondents extended threats to the complainant or prevented her in any manner, there would have been no occasion for the complainant to lodge the FIRs, which admittedly came to be lodged after disposal of bail petitions, as detailed hereinabove. 7. Moreover, having carefully perused the entire record, this Court finds that complainant as well as private respondents are immediate neighbours and there exists land dispute interse them. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making available certain documents, attempted to argue that one of private respondents, namely Baldev Singh, made an attempt to malign the character of the complainant, but for that purpose, the appropriate remedy is not cancellation of bail, rather, in that situation, the complainant ought to have filed appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petitions and accordingly, same are dismissed, reserving liberty to the complainant to approach police authorities in case she is harassed or extended threats by the private respondents, in which event the police shall enquire into the matter and submit its report to the trial Court, where charge sheet in the FIRs in question already stands filed. September 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (shankar) Judge