IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No. 160 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.10.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Court on its own motion. .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Court on its own motion. For the respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG, for respondent No. 1-State with ASI Swaroop Ram, I.O. Police Station, Reckong Peo. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Investigation record produced and perused. 2. Heard. The present suo moto proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the prosecutrix, who approached this Court by way of a letter petition with a prayer to cancel the bail allowed by the learned Sessions Judge to the accused, who are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. 3. Notice was issued to respondent No. 1-State as also the accused, who are respondents No. 2 to 4 herein. Reply/report followed by supplementary reply/report were filed by the respondent No. 1-State. 4. The prayer for cancellation of bail is made only on the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... grounds that it was obtained by misrepresentation of facts and respondent No. 2/accused Anil Kumar while in judicial custody wrote a letter to the prosecutrix expressing his infatuation for her. A photocopy of the letter has also been annexed with the petition. 5. It is stated on behalf of respondent No. 1/State that with receipt of FSL report, investigation is complete. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is being prepared and shall be submitted to the Court for trial shortly. 6. It is contended on behalf of the respondents/accused that the letter petition has been moved only with a view to prejudice the Court against them so that the discretion exercised in their favour by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail is upset. Per contra, respondent No. 1-State has also not been able to make out a case for cancellation of bail. In such circumstances, without touching merits of the case so that such an exercise may not cause prejudice to either case on behalf of the parties, which is yet to stand trial, I am satisfied that no lawful cause or basis is made out for any interference with the order granting bail in favour of the respondents/accused at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7. Investigation record returned. 8. The records of the learned trial court be sent back. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 17th October, 2011 (virender)