Dismissed¶11

Pankaj Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Jul 2026CRMPM/1244/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr.MP(M) No. 1244 of 2026; Pankaj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh; interim bail vacated; interim protection withdrawn for failure to join investigation; FIR No. 4 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025; Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code; PS CID/Crime Bharari Shimla; Justice Sandeep Sharma; order dated 09.07.2026 vacated; petition dismissed 17.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

In view of the petitioner's conduct (failure to join investigation despite directions), there is no justification to grant him interim bail; therefore the interim protection granted vide order dated 09.07.2026 is vacated. ¶11

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Hp — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No. 1244 of 2026 Decided on: 17.07.2026

¶3

____________ ______________________________________________________ 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. __________________________________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Bharari, Shimla, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

July 17, 2026 Rajeev Raturi

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Pankaj Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. State of Hp

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

Rakshak Khachi Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Alone Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Integrated Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Brajesh Raitka Vs Ravinder Singh

Shanti Pal Vs Himachal Gramin Bank

Hoshyar Singh Vs State of Hp

Vinod Kumar Vs C.D. Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. and Anr.