IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 1244 of 2026 Decided on: 17.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________ Pankaj Kumar ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent __________________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ASI Chander Mohan, PS CID Bharari, Shimla, present in person along with record. __________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Sequel to order dated 09.07.2026, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No.4 of 2025, dated 19.11.2025, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station CID/Crime Bharari, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, respondent/State has filed status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency and ASI Chander Mohan, PS CID 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Bharari, Shimla, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of the Investigating Officer who is present in Court, states that despite there being specific directions contained in the order dated 09.07.2026, petitioner failed to come present on 10.07.2026 at 11:00 AM for joining investigation. He states that more than eight days have passed after passing of order dated 09.07.2026, but till date petitioner has not joined the investigation and as such, interim protection granted in his favour vide order dated 09.07.2026 may be vacated. 3. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, who on the last date of hearing was otherwise directed to cause presence of the petitioner on the next date of hearing, states that petitioner is not picking-up his calls. 4. In view of aforesaid conduct of petitioner, there appears to be no justification to grant him interim bail and as such, interim protection granted vide order dated 09.07.2026 is vacated and present petition is dismissed. July 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge