State of Hp Vs Jatinder Sood

2025:HHC:1061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

---------------------------------------- State of Himachal Pradesh	---------- Vers	Cr. MP (M) No.2311 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.01.2025 ---------------------------------------------- ...Applicant us
Jatinder Sood ---------------------------------------- Coram:	----------	…Respondent ---------------------------------------------
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sand	eep Sha	rma, Judge.
*Whether approved for repor*	*ting?*¹
----------------------------------------	----------	---------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Mr. Ge Dep	Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate nerals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, uty Advocate General.
For the Respondent:	Mr. res	Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the pondent.
---------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)	Mr. the ----------	Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate, for victim/complainant. ---------------------------------------------

¶4

By way of instant application filed under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/State for cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent vide order dated 27.01.2021 passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 140 of 2021 on the ground that after his being enlarged on bail, afore respondent not only attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence, but he repeatedly extended threats to one of the prosecution witnesses, namely Mr. Vipansu Rana.

¶5

Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,

¶6

respondent has filed reply, wherein allegation of extension of

¶7

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2

¶9

threats has been seriously refuted. It has been averred in the reply that person namely Mr. Vipansu Rana, who was allegedly threatened, has not been examined by the prosecution, rather prosecution itself has given him up.

¶10

Having taken note of aforesaid specific averment contained in the reply, this Court specifically called upon learned Additional Advocate General to verify “whether the person, namely Mr. Vipansu Rana, has been given up or is still being cited as a prosecution witness.” While placing on record certified copy of order dated 13.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that PW Mr. Vipansu Rana, being repetitive of PWs 3 & 4, has been given up. Since person namely Mr. Vipansu Rana, who was allegedly threatened by the respondent/accused after his being enlarged on bail, has been given up by the prosecution, coupled with the fact that no complaint, if any, filed by the above named Mr. Vipansu Rana, has been adduced on record suggestive of the fact that he was extended threats by the respondent herein, instant application filed by the applicant/State for cancellation of bail deserves to be rejected. True it is that mere giving up of aforesaid person by the prosecution may not have much relevance as far as prayer made on behalf of the applicant/State for cancellation of bail is considered, but since as has been observed

¶11

3

¶12

hereinabove, no material worth credence has been adduced on record to demonstrate that Mr. Vipansu Rana was extended threats and in that regard, afore person had made any complaint to the Police, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel for the respondent, that at present there is no circumstance against the respondent, which can persuade this Court to allow the prayer made on behalf of the applicant/State for cancellation of bail.

¶13

Though, at this stage, Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, learned counsel for victim/complainant, attempted to argue that there is a connivance between the prosecution and respondent because aforesaid person namely Mr. Vipansu Rana has been purposely given up by the prosecution to benefit the accused, but such plea of him deserves rejection being totally irrelevant for the adjudication of the application at hand.

¶14

Consequently, in view of the above, the present application is dismissed.

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma)

¶16

January 06, 2025 ( sunil )

¶17

Judge

State of Hp v. Jatinder Sood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Jatinder Sood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roop Singh and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajesh Thakur Vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Uco Bank and Another

Kishori Lal Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Mangat Ram Vs State of Hp

Haripur Paper Company Vs the UOI and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp