IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.839 of 2026 Date of Decision: 29.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Vijay Khosla ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Vijay Khosla, who is in judicial custody, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No.223 of 2020 dated 29.9.2020, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 186, 189, 182, and 307 of IPC and Sections 181, 184, 187, 192 and 197 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2 2. In terms of order dated 15.5.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Hitender Kumar, PS Sadar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 28.9.2020 at around 10.01pm , police received telephonic intimation that person namely Vijay Khosla i.e. present bail petitioner, has thrown sand and gravel outside his house, as a result of which, vehicles passing on the road are facing obstruction. Police reached on the spot and found that one Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP031052 has been parked on the cart road and petitioner is seated in the afore car on the driver side. When police officials asked the bail petitioner to park his vehicle on the side of the road, he not only started arguing with them, but also extended threats. Allegedly, while leaving the spot, bail petitioner attempted to run over his vehicle on the police officials. In the afore background, FIR in question came to be lodged against the petitioner. 4. Vide order dated 13.10.2020, petitioner was released on interim bail subject to certain conditions, including that he shall remain present for trial. Allegedly, bail petitioner defaulted in making himself available for cross-examination and as such, bail granted to him was cancelled vide order dated 23.3.2026 by the learned Additional Sessions 3 Judge-1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Pursuant to cancellation of bail, petitioner was taken in custody. 5. Pursuant to cancellation of bail vide order dated 23.3.2026, he moved application for grant of bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 5.5.2026. In the afore background, petitioner has approached thi scourt in the instant proceedings for grant of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after passing of order dated 13.10.2020 , whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail, petitioner had been regularly coming for the trial, but on 23.3.2026, he was unable to come present on account of burn injuries. He states that though petitioner made available all the documents relating to his injury, but yet court taking hyper technical view, proceeded to dismiss the bail. 7. Careful perusal of order dated 5.5.2026, suggests that default, if any, on the part of the petitioner to cause his presence during trial was for only one day i.e. 23.3.2026 and prior to afore date, he had been making himself available on each and every date of trial. Though on 23.3.2026, petitioner did not come present on account of burn injuries, allegedly suffered by him, but since he failed to file appropriate application for 4 exemption, court below proceeded to cancel his bail, as a result of which, he is in judicial custody. 8. Though this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General that since no application for exemption was filed by the petitioner, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the court below while canceling the bail granted to the petitioner, however having taken note of the fact that default, if any, was for a single day coupled with the fact that on 23.3.2026, petitioner was unable to come present on account of medical emergency, this Court deems it fit to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to remain present in the Court and as such, orders dated 23.3.2026 and 5.12.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, thereby cancelling/rejecting the bail of the petitioner are quashed and set-aside and petitioner herein is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) He shall make himself 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; 5 (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises 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 (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 9. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 10. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 11. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. May 29, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge