IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No.608 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Gaurav Bhardwaj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Insp. Hans Raj, SHO PS Sadar, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh present with record. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order dated 16.4.2026, whereby petitioner herein was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 22 of 2026 dated 26.1.2026, under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to his joining investigation on 17.4.2026 at 11:00 am, Insp. Hansraj has come present. He states that despite there being specific direction issued by this Court to the petitioner to join investigation on 17.4.2026, he has failed to come present on the given date for interrogation. He also made available one communication dated 16.4.2026, 2 submitted at the behest of the petitioner to the Investigating Officer, perusal whereof reveals that on account of indisposition, petitioner expressed his inability to come present before the Investigating Officer on the date fixed by this Court. It also emerges from the afore communication that though petitioner undertook to appear before the Investigating Officer on 20.4.2026, but fact remains that even on that date, he did not turn up. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of Investigating Officer, states that since despite there being directions issued by this court, petitioner failed to join the investigation, interim protection granted vide order dated 16.4.2026, needs to be vacated. 3. Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that though on 17.4.2026, petitioner was indisposed but he personally took him to Investigating Officer at concerned Police Station, which fact has been seriously refuted by the Investigating Officer present in the Court, who states that in the evening of 17.4.2026, above named counsel though had come to the Police Station, but petitioner never presented himself for investigation, which fact can be verified from the CCTV footage. 4. Though, Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel, further states that Investigating Officer insisted upon the investigation of the petitioner by 3 Superintendent of Police, Solan, but since there was no written communication with regard to same, petitioner did not appear before the afore authority. It is apparent from the facts noticed herein above that despite there being specific direction contained in the order dated 16.4.2026, whereby petitioner was enlarged on interim bail in the afore FIR, subject to his joining investigation, petitioner failed to join the investigation on 17.4.2026 and thereafter, on 20.4.2026, coupled with the fact that no application, whatsoever, ever came to be filed before this Court for modification of order dated 16.4.2026, this Court has reason to presume and believe that petitioner has violated the order dated 16.4.2026 and as such, interim protection granted vide aforesaid order needs to be vacated. Ordered accordingly. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present bail petition is dismissed. April 21, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge