Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:9417 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP (M) Nos. : 1459 & 1461 of 2025 Reserved on : 12th March, 2026 Decided on : 31st March, 2026
1. Cr. MP (M) No.1459 of 2025 XYZ
…Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents
2. Cr. MP (M) No.1461 of 2025 XYZ
…Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the applicant(s) : Ms. Shalini Thakur, Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat,
Additional
Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:9417 Virender Singh, Judge Applicant has filed the present applications, under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to cancel the bail, granted in favour of respondent No.2 Jebo in Cr.MP(M) No. 1459 of 2025 and Tek Chand in Cr.MP(M) No.461 of 2025, by this Court, in case FIR No.6 of 2025, dated 02.02.2025, registered under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, H.P.
2. For the sake of convenience, respondent No.2, in both the petitions, are hereinafter referred to as the accused persons.
3.
Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present applications, as per the documents annexed with the applications, may be summed up as under:
3.1. The applicant has lodged FIR No.6 of 2025, dated 02.02.2025, against the accused persons for allegedly committing offences under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of IPC.
3 2026:HHC:9417
3.2. The said FIR was lodged on the ground that the accused persons, namely; Jebo and Tek Chand, had kept the applicant as maid, however, accused Tek Chand had developed physical relations with her, which resulted into birth of a child. Thereafter, the accused persons had thrown her out of their house.
3.3. It is the further case of the applicant that accused persons are not permitting her to stay in their house, nor giving any maintenance, as such, she has prayed that action be taken against them.
3.4. On the basis of the above facts, the FIR in question, has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.
3.5. Thereafter, apprehending their arrest, the accused persons had approached this Court, by way of Cr.MP(M) Nos.195 & 209 of 2025, which have been allowed vide order dated 18.03.2025. Operative para 11 of the
order, is reproduced, as under:
“11. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the Police has not been able to make out a case for custodial interrogation. Consequently, applications are allowed and the interim order dated 4.2.2025, passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 195 of 2025 and interim order dated 5.2.2025, passed in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 209 of 2025, are liable to be made absolute. As
4 2026:HHC:9417 such, the interim orders, as aforesaid, are made absolute. Applicants are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 6 of 2025, dated 2.2.2025, under Section 376, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered with Police Station, Kihar, District Chamba, H.P., on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/,each, with one surety in the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicants will join the investigation of the case, as and when called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court. c) That the applicants will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the
facts of the case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court. d)That the applicants 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.”
4. Now, the prosecutrix is before this Court, seeking cancellation of prearrest bail, granted to the accused persons, on the ground that after getting the relief from this Court, both the accused persons are threatening her with dire consequences, if she refuses to make a compromise and to withdraw the complaint. 5 2026:HHC:9417
5. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the liberty of bail granted to the accused persons has now been misused by them, as such, they have violated the conditions, as imposed by this Court. 6. It is the further case of the applicant that in the month of April, when the prosecutrix was threatened by the accused persons, she made a representation to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Chamba. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by cancelling the bail by remanding them to judicial custody. 8. Along with the applications, copy of the application made to Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Chamba, has also been annexed. Perusal of the same reveals that the applicant had lodged a complaint against both the accused persons that they are tampering with the evidence, pressurizing the applicant in various ways to make a compromise and threatened her to face the consequences. 6 2026:HHC:9417
10. When put to notice, the accused persons had denied all the allegations by pleading that the applications for cancellation of bail may kindly be dismissed. 11. In this case, it is not in dispute that criminal machinery was put into motion by applicant, by lodging the FIR, against the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet has now been filed against the accused persons. 12. When the accused persons approached this Court to grant prearrest bail, then, the State was put to notice and thereafter, the relief under Section 482 BNSS was given to them, by directing the I.O./Police to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest. 13.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ‘Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana’, reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349, has held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order, directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Relevant paragraph 4 of the said judgment is reproduced, as under:
7 2026:HHC:9417
“4. Rejection of bail in a nonbailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering
whether
any
supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.”
14. In another case titled as ‘Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 66, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the bail can be cancelled, if material(s), on which, bail is granted is/are substantially irrelevant.
Relevant
8 2026:HHC:9417 Paragraphs 25 to 27 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:
“25. The perversity as highlighted in Puran’s case (supra) can also flow from the fact that as noted above, irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration adding vulnerability to the order granting bail. The irrelevant materials should be of a substantial nature and not of a trivial nature. In the instant case, the trial Court seems to have been swayed by the fact that Sohrabuddin had shady reputation and criminal antecedents. That was not certainly a factor which was to be considered while granting bail. It was nature of the acts which ought to have been considered. By way of illustration, it can be said that the accused cannot take a plea while applying for bail that the person whom he killed was a hardened criminal. That certainly is not a factor which can be taken into account. 26. Another significant factor which was highlighted by the State before the High Court was that an FIR allegedly was filed to divert attention from the fake encounter. The same was not lodged by the Gujarat Police. The accused was the leader of the Rajasthan team and the other officials were Abdul Rehman, Himanshu Singh, Mohan Singh, Shyam Singh and Jai Singh. The first named Abdul Rehman had lodged the FIR. It is pointed out from the General Diary in respect of entry on 26.11.2005 that accused Dinesh was present. In FIR No.CRI 5/2005 also the presence of Dinesh has been noted. The relevance of these factors does not appear to have been noticed by the High Court. In other words, relevant materials were kept out of consideration. Once it is concluded that bail was granted on untenable grounds, the plea of absence of supervening circumstances has no leg to stand. 9 2026:HHC:9417
27.
We have only highlighted the above aspects to show that irrelevant materials have been taken into account and/or relevant materials have been kept out of consideration. That being so, the order of granting bail to the appellant was certainly vulnerable. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that whatever observations have been made are only to decide the question of grant of bail and shall not be treated to be expression of any opinion on merits. The case relating to acceptability or otherwise of the evidence is the subject matter for the trial Court.”
15. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, now, this Court would proceed to determine whether the applicant is able to make out a case in her favour for cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons. 16. In the application, dated 05.04.2025, Annexure P2, written to Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Chamba, she has made a prayer to provide a legal aid counsel, so she can file the application for cancellation of bail. 17. In the application, Annexure P2, vague averments have been made that after getting relief from
10 2026:HHC:9417 this Court, under Section 482 BNSS, the accused persons have tampered with the evidence and pressurizing the applicant in various ways to make compromise and threatened her to face the consequences. 18. Neither, in the application, Annexure P2, nor, in the present applications, any specific date or instance has been mentioned and only the vague allegations have been levelled. Those allegations are not liable to be looked into, in the absence of any specific date, when the alleged threatenings were given and how the accused persons had pressurized the prosecutrix to compromise the matter. 19.
The applicant has not made any complaint to the police or to any authority with regard to the alleged threatening or tampering with the evidence, allegedly by the accused persons. 20. So far as application, Annexure P2, is concerned, the same is written to the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Chamba, to provide the Legal Aid Counsel to her, so that she can file the application for cancellation of bail. 11 2026:HHC:9417
21. In the application, Annexure P2, the vague allegations have been reproduced. Since, the general allegations have been levelled against the accused persons, as such, there is no occasion for this Court to accept the prayer as made, in the present applications, as such, the same deserve to be dismissed. 22. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. ( Virender Singh ) Judge March 31, 2026(ps)