Bail cancellation requires evidence of supervening circumstances or misuse like witness threats; absent proof, bail not cancelled. Informant's demand for money to compromise constitutes interference with justice, warranting contempt proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for cancellation of bail in FIR No. 7 of 2024, dated 12.1.2024, registered in Police Station Jhakri, District Shimla, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It has been asserted that respondent No.2/accused approached the Court and obtained bail. The Court imposed a condition that she would not contact the informant, threaten or browbeat him/her or use any pressure tactics in any manner whatsoever. Respondent No.2/accused continuously threatened the petitioner to withdraw the complaint. She also filed a petition for quashing of the FIR based on a compromise, which was got executed by exercising influence upon the present petitioner. She is misusing the opportunity extended to her. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the bail be cancelled.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the petitioner/informant approached the Investigating Officer and told him that the matter was compromised. The police advised the informant to produce the compromise before the Court. Thereafter, the informant made a complaint regarding the threat advanced to him. The police called him, but he did not make a statement to the police. The investigation is continuing. Hence, the status report.

3. A separate reply was filed by respondent No.2/accused, making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of maintainability and the informant having not come to the Court with clean hands. It was asserted that the FIR was lodged against the accused with an ulterior motive to extract money from her. It was specifically denied that the accused had tried to pressurize the informant to enter into any compromise. The informant purchased the stamp paper and got the compromise typed on his own. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. A reply to the status report was also filed by the informant/petitioner, denying its contents.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of respondent No.2/accused that the informant/petitioner had demanded Rs.50.00 lacs for compromising the matter, and she had recorded a mobile conversation to this effect. Since this was a serious matter, therefore, the police were directed to investigate the matter. The police submitted a report that an audio file containing the conversation between the informant and the accused was recovered from the mobile phones. The voice matched the voice of the informant.

6. I have heard Mr. Rajat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/informant, Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Trigun Singh Negi, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused.

7. Mr. Rajat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/informant, submitted that the accused had pressurised the informant to compromise the matter. She filed a petition for quashing of the FIR based on a compromise. The Court had imposed a specific condition that she would not influence the witnesses. She has violated the conditions imposed by the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the bail granted to respondent No.2/accused be cancelled.

8. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State, submitted that the informant complained to the police regarding the threat. The police asked the info