Himachal Pradesh High Court
Unknown vs Manjeet Singh And Another on 13 March, 2026
2026:HHC:7139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) Nos. 1551 & 1552 of 2025
.
Reserved on: 03.03.2026
Date of Decision: 13.3.2026.
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 1551 of 2025
of
Chanchal Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Manjeet Singh and another ...Respondents
rt
_____________________________________
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1552 of 2025
Chanchal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Raj Kumari and another ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr Ajay Sharma, Senior
Advocate, with Mr Tarun
Brakta, Advocate, in both the
petitions.
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr Animesh Pathak,
Advocate, in both the petitions
For Respondent No.2 : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy
Advocate General, in both the
petitions.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:7139
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner(s) has filed the present petitions for
.
cancellation of bail granted to the respondents/accused in FIR
No. 38 of 2025, dated 07.05.2025, registered at Police Station
Mehatpur, District Una, for the commission of offences
of
punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2.
rt
It has been asserted that the petitioner/informant
made a complaint to the police that the marriage of his
daughter, Ms Pooja, was solemnised in the year 2016 with the
accused Manjeet Singh. A daughter was born to her. Manjeet
Singh started harassing Pooja soon after the marriage. She made
complaints to the informant. Raj Kumari, mother-in-law of
Pooja, also used to harass her. Pooja called the informant over
Mobile Phone on 05.06.2025 and told him not to visit her
matrimonial home because his life was in danger. She promised
to mention the details in the morning. The informant received a
call from Manjeet Singh on 06.05.2025 at 12:00-12:30 pm that
Pooja had consumed poison. The informant went to the regional
hospital, Una, where Pooja was lying conscious. Manjeet Singh
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:7139
was also present in the Hospital but he was intoxicated. Pooja
was referred to PGI. She was taken to Gurdev Hospital, Nurpur
.
Bedi, District Ropar (Punjab), where she died. Postmortem of the
dead body was conducted, and the cause of death was found to
be the consumption of the insecticides. The police arrested the
respondents. They filed bail petitions, which were allowed by the
of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, District Una (learned
Trial Court). The police recovered a suicide note in which Pooja
rt
had attributed the cause of her death to her harassment. The
offence is grave, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Una, erred in releasing the respondents on bail. The respondents
threatened the informant after getting bail from the Court.
Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and
the bail of the respondents be cancelled.
3. The State has filed a status report asserting that the
police received information on 07.05.2025 from Gurdev
Hospital, Nurpur Bedi, District Ropar (Punjab) that Pooja Devi
had died. The police went to the hospital and obtained the
treatment summary. The informant made a complaint to the
police that Pooja was married to Manjeet Singh in the year 2016,
as per Hindu rites and customs. A daughter was born to her.
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:7139
Manjeet Singh and Raj Kumari used to harass Pooja. Pooja called
the informant on 05.06.2025 and advised him not to visit her
.
matrimonial home, as his life was in danger. She asked the
informant to visit in the morning with some people, as she was
being harassed. Manjeet Singh called the informant at about
12:30 pm and told him that Pooja had consumed insecticide. The
of
informant went to the hospital and found that Pooja was under
treatment. Manjeet Singh was also present in the hospital, but
rt
he was intoxicated. Pooja was referred to a higher institution,and she was taken to Gurdev Hospital, Nurpur Bedi, District
Ropar (Punjab). Pooja died during the treatment. The police
registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police
recovered the bottle of insecticide from Pooja’s house. The
police arrested the respondents. One suicide note was found to
have been written by Pooja, stating that Manjeet Singh used to
remain intoxicated. He used to abuse Pooja. Her mother-in-law
also used to taunt and blame her for every wrong. The police
seized the suicide note. The respondents filed bail applications,
which were allowed by the learned Trial judge. The admitted
signatures of the deceased were taken and sent to RFSL;
however, the handwriting expert demanded more admitted
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:7139signatures. The informant made a statement that he did not
have any documents written by Pooja with him. Hence, the
.
status report.
4. I have heard Mr Ajay Sharma, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr Tarun Brakta, learned counsel for the
of
petitioner, Mr Animesh Pathak, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 in both the petitions, and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy
rt
Advocate General for respondent No.2/State.
5. Mr Ajay Shrama, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner/informant, submitted that the learned Trial Court
erred in granting bail to the respondents. The deceased had
complained about her repeated harassment; therefore, a
presumption would arise that she had committed suicide
because of her harassment. The allegation against the
respondents are serious, and the learned Trial Court erred in
releasing the respondents on bail by writing a cryptic order;
therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and
the bail granted by the learned Trial Court be cancelled.
6. Mr Animesh Pathak, learned counsel for the
accused/respondent No.1, in both the petitions submitted that
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:7139
the learned Trial Court had exercised the discretion in favour of
the respondents based on the relevant consideration. This Court
.
should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned
Trial Court unless it is shown to be perverse or arbitrary. The
informant had not made any complaint to any person. The
suicide note is not connected to Pooja. No complaint of any
of
threat was made to any person. Therefore, he prayed that the
present petitions be dismissed.
rt
7. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the respondent No.2/State has nothing to state in this matter
and prayed that an appropriate order may be passed.
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
9. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Zeba Khan v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 188 that an order
granting bail is liable to be interfered with when it is shown to be
arbitrary, perverse or passed in disregard of the material
consideration. It was observed:
“13. It is trite that while personal liberty occupies a
position of high constitutional value, an order granting
bail does not enjoy immunity from appellate scrutiny::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:7139where it is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or passed in
disregard of material considerations. The discretion to
grant bail, though wide, is structured by well-settled.
legal principles and is neither uncanalised nor unfettered.
14. In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1702, and Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2580, this Court authoritativelyclarified that cancellation of bail on account of post-bail
misconduct stands on a fundamentally different footing
from annulment of a bail order which is itself unjustifiedof
or legally unsustainable at its inception. An order
granting bail is liable to be interfered with where it
reveals reliance on irrelevant considerations, ignores
relevant material, or suffers from perversity without the
rt
necessity of waiting for supervening circumstances.
15. In Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher
(2024) 10 SCC 753, in which one of us (Ahsanuddin
Amanullah, J.) was a member of the Bench, this Court set
aside the grant of bail in appeal, holding that thediscretion exercised by the High Court was vitiated. The
Court comprehensively restated the parameters
governing the exercise of jurisdiction to grant bail,including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the
role attributed to the accused, criminal antecedents, thelikelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses, the
risk of abscondence, and the overall impact on society.
The following paragraphs are pertinent:
“18. Courts, while granting bail, are required to
consider relevant factors such as the nature of the
accusation, the role ascribed to the accused concerned,
possibilities/chances of tampering with the evidence
and/or witnesses, antecedents, flight risk, et al.
Speaking through Hima Kohli, J., the present coram in
Ajwar v. Waseem [(2024) 10 SCC 768], apropos relevant
parameters for granting bail, observed: (SCC paras 26-
27)
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:7139“26. While considering as to whether bail ought to
be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal
offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like.
the nature of the accusations made against the
accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to
have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the
role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents
of the accused, the probability of tampering of the
witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are
released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being
of
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility
of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts
of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the
accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.
rt
[(2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528:
2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [(2009)
14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011)
3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2014)16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar
Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2018) 12 SCC 129 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar
[(2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].]
27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted
ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
always open to interference by the superior court. If
there are serious allegations against the accused,
even if he has not misused the bail granted to him,
such an order can be cancelled by the same Court
that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by
a superior court if it transpires that the courts below
have ignored the relevant material available on record,
or not looked into the gravity of the offence, or the
impact on society, resulting in such an order. In P v.
State of M.P. [(2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-
Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:7139
(Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations
that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an
order granting bail to an accused under Section
.
439(1) CrPC in the following words: (SCC p. 224,
para 24)
’24. As can be discerned from the above
decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the
court must consider whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the
accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is
of
no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him
to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession
of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana,
(1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it
rt differently, in ordinary circumstances, this
Court would be loath to interfere with an order
passed by the court below granting bail, but if
such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or
premised on material that is irrelevant, then
such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and
interference by the appellate court.’ (emphasis
supplied)
19. In State of Haryana v. Dharamraj [(2023) 17 SCC 510],
speaking through one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,
J.), the Court, while setting aside an order [Dharamraj
v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4632] of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court granting
(anticipatory) bail, discussed and reasoned: (SCC paras
6-11)
“6. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is
warranted. This Court considered the factors to
guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri)
688] and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
[(2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]. In Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496 :
(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765], the relevant principles were
restated thus: (SCC p. 499, para 9)::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:7139‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not,
normally, interfere with an order passed by the
High Court granting or rejecting bail to the.
accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon
the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance
with the basic principles laid down in a plethora
of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well
settled that, among other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an
of
application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused
had committed the offence;
rt (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event
of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by the grant of bail.’
7. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118 :
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558], this Court opined as under:
(SCC p. 125, para 16)
’16. The considerations that guide the power of an
appellate court in assessing the correctness of an
order granting bail stand on a different footing
from an assessment of an application for the
cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order
granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:7139was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the
discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether
the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or.
unjustified. On the other hand, an application for
cancellation of bail is generally examined on the
anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances
or violations of the conditions of bail by a person towhom bail has been granted.’
8. In Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar [(2023) 13 SCC
549: 2023 INSC 761], this Court, in view of Dolat Ram
of
v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri)
237]; Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh [(1996) 4 SCC
693: 1996 SCC (Cri) 844] and X v. State of Telangana
[(2018) 16 SCC 511 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 902], held as
rt
follows: (Bhagwan Singh case, SCC p. 557, para 13)
’13. It is also required to be borne in mind that
when a prayer is made for the cancellation of a
grant of bail, cogent and overwhelming
circumstances must be present, and bail once
granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical
manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it
inadvisable to allow a fair trial. This proposition
draws support from the judgment of this Court
in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC
349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237], Kashmira Singh v.
Duman Singh [(1996) 4 SCC 693: 1996 SCC (Cri)
844] and X v. State of Telangana [(2018) 16 SCC
511 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 902].’
9. In X3 v. State (UT of Andaman) [(2023) 14 SCC 280:
2023 INSC 767], this Court noted that the principles
in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, [(2010)
14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] stood reiterated
in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra [(2022) 9 SCC 321 :
(2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560].
10. The contours of anticipatory bail have been
elaborately dealt with by five-Judge Benches in
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:7139
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2
SCC 565: 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] and Sushila Aggarwal v.
State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1 : (2020) 2 SCC
.
(Cri) 721]. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
514] is worthy of mention in this context, despite its
partial overruling in Sushila Aggarwal. We are
cognizant that liberty is not to be interfered with
easily. More so, when an order of pre-arrest bail
already stands granted by the High Court.
of
11. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail
is to be exercised with judicial discretion. The
factors illustrated by this Court through its
pronouncements are illustrative and not
rt
exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns
on its own facts and merits.” (emphasis supplied)
20. In Ajwar v. Waseem, [(2024) 10 SCC 768], this Court
also examined the considerations for setting aside bail
orders in terms below: (SCC paras 28-29)
“28. The considerations that weigh with the
appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an
application being moved by the aggrieved party
include any supervening circumstances that may
have occurred after granting relief to the accused,
the conduct of the accused while on bail, any
attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate,
resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of
threats being extended to the witnesses while on
bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to
tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may
add that this list is only illustrative and not
exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that
at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case
needs to be examined, and detailed reasons relating to
the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the
accused ought to be avoided. It is sufficient to state
that the bail order should reveal the factors that
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:7139
have been considered by the Court for granting
relief to the accused.
29. In Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, [(2022) 9 SCC
.
321 : (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560], a three-Judge Bench of
this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail
under Section 439 CrPC is of wide amplitude and
the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may
be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while
deciding an application for bail. But this discretion
is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect the
of
due application of the judicial mind following well-
established principles of law. In the ordinary
course, courts would be slow to interfere with the
order where bail has been granted by the courts
rt
below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal
or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant
material, the appellate court would be well within
its power to set aside and cancel the bail. (Also
refer: Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC
(Cri) 1124]; Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat
[(2008) 13 SCC 584 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 813])”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. Recently, in Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2732, this Court once again crystallised thedistinction between an appeal against the grant of bail
and an application seeking cancellation of bail. It was
reiterated that in an appeal against the grant of bail, thesuperior court is concerned with examining the legality,
propriety, and correctness of the bail order itself, and not
the subsequent conduct of the accused. Where the bail
order suffers from perversity, illegality, or non-
consideration of relevant factors such as the gravity of
the offence, impact on society, or criminal antecedents,
interference is fully justified. The following observations
are pertinent:
“7. At the outset, it is well settled by this Court that an
appeal against the grant of bail and an application
seeking cancellation of bail are on a different footing. The::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:7139grounds for testing the legality of an order granting bail
are well settled. Recently, in Ashok Dhankad v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690], this Court.
had summarised the position of law as follows:
“19. The principles that emerge as a result of the
above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against the grant of bail cannot be
considered to be on the same footing as an
application for cancellation of bail;
of
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a
threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by
the prosecution. The merits of such evidence
rtmust not be adjudicated at the stage of bail.”
10. A similar view was taken in Shobha Namdev Sonavane
v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 291, wherein it
was observed:
“20. We make it clear that there is a clear distinction
between cancellation of bail on the considerations
provided under Section 439(2) CrPC (correspondingSection 483(3) BNSS) and reversal of an order of bail by
the superior Court. While cancellation should only be
resorted to in cases where the accused misuses the liberty
of bail granted to him or tamper with the evidence. On theother hand, the order granting bail can be interfered with
by the superior Court considering the nature and gravity
of the offences; if the order granting bail ignores the
relevant material available on record or if the same is
based on extraneous considerations. The present is a case
in the second category.”
11. This position was reiterated in Sarju Prasad v. State of
U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 334, wherein it was held:
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:7139
“14. Thus, the Appellate Court or the Higher forum that
examines whether the order granting bail suffers from
non-application of mind or is not borne out of a prima.
facie view on evidence on record, would be an essential
feature. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess
whether, on the basis of the evidence on record, there
exists a prima facie case or reasonable ground that the
accused has committed the crime, also taking into
account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of
the punishment. It is worth noting that in the instant
of
case, what is being considered relates to whether the High
Court had exercised the discretionary power under
Section 439 in granting bail appropriately or not. Such an
assessment is different from deciding whether
rt
circumstances after the grant of bail have made it
necessary to cancel the same. If the twin factors are
conspicuously present, then in such an event, this Court
would be required to examine both the factors. The first
situation requires analysing whether the granting of bail
is illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary. On the other
hand, an application for cancellation of bail looks at
whether supervening circumstances have occurred,
warranting cancellation.”
12. The learned Trial Court held that the custody of the
respondents was not required for any purpose whatsoever, and
no fruitful purpose would be served by their detention. There
was no apprehension that respondents would influence any
witnesses, and there was no reason to deny bail. Bail is the rule
and jail is the exception, and a person cannot be kept behind
bars indefinitely.
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:7139
13. These are relevant considerations, and it cannot be
said that the learned Trial Court had not considered the relevant
.
material while granting the bail. Learned Trial Court had rightly
held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and no case was
made out for invoking the exception. This was not a perverse
order, and it is not possible to interfere with it.
of
14. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court had not
rt
discussed the gravity of the offence. This submission cannot be
accepted. Learned Trial Court noticed in para 10 that the
allegations levelled against respondents were heinous and
grievous in nature, but it was not a decisive factor to deny bail.
The learned Trial Court was well advised not to appreciate the
evidence collected by the prosecution to avoid any prejudice to
either of the parties. Thus, the bail cannot be cancelled on the
ground that the learned Trial Court had not considered the
gravity of the offence.
15. Even otherwise, the suicide note stated to have been
recovered has not been connected to the deceased. It was sent to
RFSL, but the handwriting expert could not give any definite
opinion about its authorship and demanded the documents
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
17
2026:HHC:7139
written in Hindi. The petitioner himself stated before the police
that he had no document written by Pooja Devi in Hindi.
.
16. The status report also mentions that no complaint
was made by the petitioner or Pooja Devi during her lifetime
regarding the harassment. The informant claimed that he had
of
received a telephonic call about the harassment and threats, and
he was advised to visit the home of Pooja with some persons.
rt
There is nothing on record that the informant had visited the
matrimonial home of Pooja immediately after receiving the
message or in the morning. He received a call at 12-12:30 from
Manjeet Singh informing him about the consumption of
insecticide by Pooja.
17. Any father receiving the distress call of his daughter
about the harassment would have taken steps to visit the spot or
to ensure the safety of his daughter. The fact that nothing was
done till 12:30 pm makes it difficult to rely upon the informant’s
version that the respondents were harassing Pooja.
18. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial
Court granting bail to the respondents cannot be faulted, and it
is not possible to interfere with the order.
::: Downloaded on – 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS
18
2026:HHC:7139
19. No other point was urged.
20. In view of the above, the present petitions fail, and
.
are dismissed.
21. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the instant petitions and will have no
of
bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
rt (Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
13th March, 2026
(Nikita)
::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:39:24 :::CIS