Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pushpa Sharma vs . M/S Golf Link Finance on 9 March, 2026
Pushpa Sharma Vs. M/s Golf Link Finance
.
Cr. R. No. 112 of 2026
Reserved on 26.02.2026
09.03.2026 Present: Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel and Ms. Kiran Thakur,
Advocates, for the petitioner.
of
Cr.R. No. 112 of 2026
Applicant/petitioner/accused had led evidence before
rt
the learned Trial Court to establish that the complainant had
advanced a loan to the accused, for which multiple cheques were
issued. Applicant/petitioner/accused was prosecuted for the
dishonour of one cheque related to the loan transaction.
2. Learned Trial Court held that the cheque numbers
were different and the filing of the earlier complaints would not
have any effect upon the present complaint. Learned Appellate
Court held that one cheque dated 13.10.2021 was issued for
₹80,000/- and another cheque dated 23.07.2021 was issued for
₹61,900/-, whereas the present cheque was issued for ₹1,58,100/-.
These transactions were different.
3. Prima facie, the findings recorded by the learned
courts below are unsustainable. As per the complainant, the
accused had taken one loan, which was declared a Non Performing
Asset (NPA), and the accused issued the cheques to discharge her
liability. Thus, the loan transaction was one and different cheques
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
were issued under one transaction. It was laid down by the Kerala
.
High Court in Mohammad Kunji Vs. Andru (2009) STPL 4051,
that filing of the complaint for dishonour of multiple cheques
regarding the single transaction is violative of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, in these circumstances, issue
of
notice to the respondent returnable within four weeks, on taking
steps within one week.
rt
4. Record of learned Trial Court be requisitioned.
Cr.MP No. 615 of 2026
5. Since, prima facie, the present complaint is violative
of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, the execution and
operation of the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded
by the learned Trial Court on 06.05.2025/07.05.2025, as affirmed
by the learned Appellate Court on 20.01.2026, in Criminal Appeal
No. 121 of 2025, is ordered to be suspended, subject to furnishing
of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court till further orders
undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed to
do so and surrender before the learned Trial Court in case of
dismissal of revision.
6. The bail bonds, so furnished by the
applicant/petitioner be transmitted to this Court for placing them
on record.
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
7. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court
.
for information.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
9th March, 2026
(sushma)
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Subhodh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 2435 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
General, for the respondents-State.
of
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list
the matter after two weeks.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Dr. Amit Lakhani Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr.MP No. 625 of 2026 in
Cr.MP(M) No. 2380 of 2023
05.03.2026 Present: Ms. Ragini Dogra, Advocate, for the applicant/
petitioner.
of
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondent/State.
rt
Status report has been filed. It shows that the
charge-sheet has been filed before the Court and the matter is
pending for consideration of charge on 14.05.2026. Since, the
charge-sheet has been filed before the Court, therefore, the
learned Trial Court would be in the best position to decide whether
the presence of the petitioner would be required or whether his
leaving India during the period specified in the application would
interfere with the fair trial.
It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that
the condition was imposed by this Court and the learned Trial
Court had earlier refused to exercise the discretion on the ground
that only this Court is competent to relax the condition. Since, the
matter is pending before the learned Trial Court, therefore, it is
ordered that in future the learned Trial Court shall decide the
application for granting permission to the applicant to visit
abroad, keeping in view the status of the trial and the
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
requirement of presence of the petitioner during the trial. The
present application stands disposed of.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
of
(sushma)
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Subhodh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 2435 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
General, for the respondents-State.
of
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list
the matter after two weeks.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
Dev Raj Kapta Vs. Tilak Raj
Cr. R. No. 178 of 2021
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Rakesh Manta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, for the
of
respondent.
It is stated that the matter is being reconciled between
rt
the parties. List the matter before Lok Adalat, as prayed.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
Jasveer Singh Vs. State of H.P.
Cr.MP(M) No. 221 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Ashwani
Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
of
General, for the respondent-State.
HC. Rakesh Kumar, No. 4, P.S. Nalagarh, Police,
District Baddi, H.P. present with record.
rt
Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
Raj Kumar Vs. State of H.P.
Cr.MP(M) No. 211 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Pushpender Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr.
Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
of
General, for the respondent-State.
S.I. Chetan Chauhan, SHO P.S. Jubbal is present with
record.
rt
Status report stands filed. Be taken on record.
List for consideration on 09.03.2026.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Sandeep Kaur Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 184 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Kusum
Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondent-State.
of
Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Kavita Khatoon Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 186 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Kusum
Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondent-State.
of
Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Nisha Devi Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 143 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent-State.
of
Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
rt ( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Shubham Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 77 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Karanveer
Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondent-State.
of
Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Mehboob Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 38 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Karanveer
Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent-State.
of
Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Guddu Ram Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 23 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Vinod Kumar Soni, Advocate, vice Mr. George,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondent-State.
of
Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
M/s Conscaff India and Ors. Vs.UOI
.
Cr. MMO No. 298 of 2025
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, vice Mr. Deven
Krishan Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for
respondent/UOI.
of
It has been submitted that Cr.MMO No. 297 of 2025,
arising out of the same order, is already pending before this Court.
rt
Since, all the petitions arising out of the same order are required to
be decided by the same Bench to avoid conflicting findings,
therefore, the present petition is ordered to be listed along with
Cr.MMO No. 297 of 2025.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
.
Cr. MP(M) No. 273 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Karun
Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
of
It has been submitted that a Criminal Revision
arising out of the same order has been filed, which has been
rt
registered as Cr.MMO No. 378 of 2025. Since, all the petitions
arising out of the same judgment/order are to be taken together to
avoid conflicting findings, therefore, the matter be listed before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Karmo and Ors. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
.
RSA No. 112 of 2008
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents No. 1 and 2-State.
Mr. Anil Kapoor, Advocate, vice Mr. Nimish Gupta,
of
Advocate, for respondents No. 3,5 to 12, 14, 16 to 23,
25 to 28 and 30.
rt
At the request of learned counsel for the appellants,
list the matter after a week.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Niku Ram (deceased) through LRs. Vs.
.
Rattan Singh (deceased) through LRs.
RSA No. 410 of 2007
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Dinesh
Bhanot, Advocate, for the appellants.
Ms. Dhanwanti, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjay
of
Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1(a).
At the request of learned counsel for the appellants,
rt
list the matter after a week.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Lal Singh (deceased) through LRS and Ors.
.
Vs. Mulakh Raj (deceased) through LRs and Ors.
RSA No. 132 of 2006
05.03.2026 Present: Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(a)
to 1(e).
of
Respondents No. 2(a) to 2(f) and 3 to 6 are ex-parte.
rt
At the request of learned counsel for respondents No.
1(a) to 1(e), list the matter after four weeks.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Vipin Kumar Machal and Anr. Vs. State of H.P..
.
Cr.MMO No. 397 of 2025
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No. 1-State.
of
Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners,
rt
list the matter on 20.03.2026.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Shankar Singh Thakur Vs. Jai Ram Thakur and Ors.
.
Cr.MMO No. 147 of 2025
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.8/State.
of
Heard.
Petitioner/complainant had filed a complaint before
rt
the learned Trial Court for lodging the FIR against the accused for
commission of offences under Sections 341, 363, 366, 323, 325,
504, 506 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the
record that the learned Trial Court called for a report of the police
and after going through the report, concluded that the
petitioner had been improving upon his version and an FIR was
also lodged by the accused person and the version in the FIR
lodged by the accused appears to be more probable than the
version of the complainant. Later, the complainant filed a revision
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, H.P., which was dismissed and the findings of
learned Trial Court were upheld.
Prima facie, the complaint discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence inasmuch as the petitioner
had sustained grievous injuries as per the MLC attached to the
complaint. The defence of the accused has been noted in view of
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that the
.
burden lies upon the accused to prove the exceptions of the IPC
and the right of private defence being one such exception under
Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code in any case. Even otherwise,
no case for referring the matter is made out. Still, the complaint
of
could not have been dismissed without calling upon the
complainant to examine himself and his witnesses. Therefore, in
rt
these circumstances, notices be issued to respondents No. 1 to 7,
returnable within four weeks.
List the matter on 20.03.2026.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Durga Devi (deceased) through LRs Vs. Rajinder Kumar
.
RSA No. 318 of 2008
05.03.2026 Present: Ms. Aditi, Advocate, vice Mr. Hitender Sharma,
Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent.
of
It has been submitted that Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan,
Advocate, in whose favour the power of attorney was filed, has
rt
now been designated as Senior Advocate. In these circumstances,
let fresh power of attorney be filed within three weeks.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Mathra Dass and Anr. Vs. Sukh Dei
.
RSA No. 218 of 2008
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.
None for the respondent.
of
Power of attorney on behalf of the appellants has not
been filed. Be filed within three weeks, as a last opportunity.
rt ( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Hem Raj and Anr. Vs. Guddi
.
RSA No. 89 of 2008
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.
1(a), 1(d), 1(f) and 1(i).
of
It has been submitted that Mr. Ajay Sharma,
Advocate, in whose favour the power of attorney was filed, has
rt
been designated as Senior Advocate. In these circumstances, let
fresh power of attorney be filed within four weeks.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Nagan Devi Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr. R. No. 325 of 2016
05.03.2026 Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
General for the respondent-State.
of
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the
petitioner. In the interest of justice, list the matter after four weeks.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
XYZ Vs. State of H.P. and Anr.
.
Cr. MMO No. 1135 of 2025
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajesh Kumar,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for
respondent No.1-State.
of
Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Cr.MP No. 5294 of 2025
rt
Reply, as prayed, be filed within two weeks as a last
opportunity, failing which the right to file reply shall
automatically stand closed.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Nagan Devi Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr. R. No. 325 of 2016
05.03.2026 Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
General for the respondent-State.
of
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the
petitioner. In the interest of justice, list the matter after four weeks.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Amit Kumar Vs. State of H.P.
.
Cr.MMO No. 1062 of 2025
05.03.2026 Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.1-State.
of
None for respondent No.2.
The case has been called repeatedly, but no one has
rt
appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, list the matter after
three weeks.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Baljinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
.
Cr.MMO No. 899 of 2025
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Sr. Advocate, with M/s
Gaurav Kumar and Hitansh Raj and Ms. Godawari,
Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
of
General, for the respondent-State.
Heard in part. For continuity, list on 17.03.2026.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
Paras Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
Cr.MP(M) No. 104 of 2026
05.03.2026 Present: M/s Sunil Dutt Gautam and Harmohan Thakur,
Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
of
General, for the respondent-State.
ASI Babita, I/O WPS Solan, District Solan, H.P.
present with the record.
rt
The victim has appeared before this Court and
submitted that she wants to oppose the bail petition filed by the
petitioner. She has further submitted that she is unable to engage
a counsel on her own and a Legal Aid Counsel be provided to her.
In these circumstances, Secretary, H.P. High Court
Legal Services Authority is requested to appoint a Legal Aid
Counsel to represent the victim and the matter be listed after two
weeks.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Anita and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and Anr.
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 487 of 2025
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajinder Singh Chandel, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1 to 3.
of
Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent -State.
rt
Argument heard. Judgment reserved.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Manjeet Kaur Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
.
Cr. MMO No. 1094 of 2025
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 to 3 -State.
of
Argument heard. Judgment reserved.
rt
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Subhash Chand Vs. Vijay Kumar and Anr.
.
Cr.R. No. 4076 of 2013
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Atharv
Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anirudh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
of
Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
General, for respondent No.2 -State.
rt
It is stated that the matter is being reconciled between
the parties. List the matter before Lok Adalat, as prayed.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr. MP (M) No. 202 of 2026.
Reserved on: 02.03.2026.
Date of Decision:..03.2026
Gulshan @ Kaka ...Petitioner
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
rt
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokinder Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for regular bail in
F.I.R. No. 60 of 2024, dated 17.08.2024, registered in Police Station Haripur,
District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 331(4), 305 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surkasha Sahinta, 2023
(BNS).
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim Daler
Singh had made a complaint to the police that he has been running a
goldsmith shop under the name and style of Pitamber Jewelers at Bankhandi
Bazaar. He had closed his shop on the intervening night of 16/17.078.2024 at
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr. MP(M) No. 2448 of 2025
Reserved on: 24.2.2026
Date of Decision: __.3.2026.
____________________________________________________
Saurabh Patial @ Fandi …Petitioner
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
rt
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : M/s Rajiv Rai and Paresh Sharma,
Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in
FIR No. 58/2025. dated 14.03.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, District
Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109
read with Section 3(5)of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and Section 25
of the Arms Act.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated
based on prior enmity with the injured. As per the prosecution, the injured and
his son had hired the shooters for killing the petitioner. They shoot at the
petitioner and he suffered bullet injury. The FIR No. 160 of 2024 was
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr. MP(M) No. 2966 of 2026
Reserved on : 02.03.2026
Date of Decision: __.3.2026.
Sachin Sharma ....Petitioner
of
Versus
State of HP rt .... Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : Mr Prashant Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Ajit Sjharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in
FIR No. 2 of 2025, dated 02.01.2025, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under
Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution’s story, the police
recovered 13.7 grams of heroin and arrested the petitioner. The allegations
against the petitioner are false. The petitioner has no role in the commission of
the crime and prosecution case is based on an imaginary story. The police has
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Vijay Patyal Vs. State Co-op Bank a/w connected matter
.
Cr. R. No. 212 of 2016 a/w
Cr. R. No. 148 of 2018
05.03.2026 Present: Mr. Shubham Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. J.R. Poswal,
Advocate, for the petitioner(s), in both the petitions.
Mr. Sushant Vir Singh, Advocate, for the
respondent(s), in both the petitions.
of
As per the report on the non-bailable warrants of
rt
arrest, the petitioner was not found at home and he has been
absconding for about one year. Therefore, it is apparent that the
petitioner has absconded. Hence, written proclamation
requiring his presence before this Court on 19.05.2026 be issued.
A copy of the proclamation be affixed on the house where the
accused last resided, one copy be affixed on the public place and
another copy be affixed on the Court notice board. The serving
Constable is directed to appear before this Court on the date fixed
to report compliance. The proclamation be published positively
on or before 09.04.2026.
Surety Ashutosh Thakur was directed to produce the
accused/petitioner before this Court on 17.12.2025. The surety did
not appear and also did not produce the
petitioner/accused before this Court. Hence, the surety bond was
forfeited to the State on 17.12.2025 and he was directed to show
cause, as to why, he be not asked to pay the surety amount to the
State.
::: Downloaded on – 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
Today, the surety is served but he is not present. He
.
has also not shown any cause for not producing the accused. As
per the report, the accused has absconded. The surety has not
shown any reasonable cause why the amount be not recovered
from him. Hence, in these circumstances, there is no option but
of
to impose the penalty of Rs. 70,000/- undertaken to be paid by
him in the surety bond. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 70,000/- is
rt
imposed upon the surety. The warrant of realization be issued to
the Collector returnable within six weeks.
( Rakesh Kainthla )
Judge
5th March, 2026
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on – 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on – 09/03/2026 20:36:44 :::CIS