IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No.659 of 2026 Date of Decision: 24.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Karan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order dated 21.4.2026, whereby petitioner herein was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.110/2025 dated 25.12.2025 under Sections 21 and 29 of ND & PS Act, at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P., subject to his joining investigation at 4:00 pm, respondent-State has filed status report. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of Investigating Officer, states that despite there being direction issued by this Court, bail petitioner failed to join the investigation. He states that though accused was called by the Investigating Officer to 2 come present on 21.4.2026, but he appeared on 23.4.2026 at 5:00pm. He submits that since at the relevant time, Investigating Officer was not present, accused was asked to come present today at 8:00am, however, he failed to join the investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who was specifically directed to cause presence of the petitioner today, during proceedings of the case, states that petitioner has switched off his phone and as such, he is not in a position to make any statement with regard to joining of the investigation by the petitioner in terms of order passed by this Court. 4. Neither petitioner has joined the investigation nor came present before this Court in terms of order passed by this Court, as such, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that 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 24, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge