( 2025:HHC:18131 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) Nos. 866 & 867 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.05.2025 Date of Decision: 06.06.2025 1 1 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 866 of 2025 Amit Mankotia ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 867 of 2025 Amrish Rana ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 1 Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioners : Mr. M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the Respondent – State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, in both the petitions. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 40 of 2025, dated 16.04.2025 registered at 2( 2025:HHC:18131 ) Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 308(4), 62, 324(5), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short BNS), 2023, It is asserted that the allegations in the FIR are false. The petitioner, Amrish Rana, was informed about illegal mining in the Sonbhadra River on 15.04.2025 at 11:15 pm. He and his friends went to the Sonbhadra River and saw from a distance that lights were on and illegal mining was going on. Two tippers, which were filled with material obtained from illegal mining, were seen speeding away. The drivers of the tripper and JCB switched off the lights after seeing Amrish Rana. Amrish Rana told the drivers of the vehicles to come out. Amrish Rana and his friends called the Gagret police station and narrated the incident to the police, however, no Police Official visited the spot. Calls were also made to Dy. S.P. and the C.M. Helpline. Amrish Rana and Jagpal Singh Rana went to the police station, Gagret, and made a written complaint to the police, however, this complaint was not registered. Amrish Rana went to the Superintendent of Police. Office and narrated the incident to the Superintendent of Police. He came to know that an FIR was registered against him. The petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. The FIR was lodged to harass and humiliate the petitioners. The allegations made in the FIR 3( 2025:HHC:18131 ) that the petitioners stopped the JCB and tipper and threatened to kill the drivers are vague. The delay in reporting the matter to the police shows the falsity of the allegations. The petitioners would join the investigation and abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, Kunwar Sandeep Singh, made a complaint to the police stating that he had established Thakur Store Crusher Guglehar about 03 years before the incident. He had employed the drivers to drive the vehicles and the JCB. Amrish Rana visited the Swan River on 12.04.2025 with his friends and threatened the drivers. He again visited the spot on 15.04.2025 at 10:00 pm with Amit Mankotia in the vehicles bearing registration No. HP67-9251 and HP72D-0695. They threatened Shiv Kumar, the driver of the JCB and Sanjay Rana, the driver of the tipper. Amrish Rana had a “darat”, and he threatened to kill the drivers on failure to accompany him. The drivers drove the vehicles to the Swan River. Amrish Rana and his friend put something into the engines and deflated the tyres of the JCB and tipper. Amrish Rana had already threatened the informant and Rohit Kumar to face dire consequences on failure to pay money to him. Police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. It was found that the 4( 2025:HHC:18131 ) petitioner had threatened the informant and Rohit Kumar for ransom. The petitioners joined the investigation; however, they have not cooperated with the police. The “darat” used during the incident and the substance put by the accused in the engines are to be recovered. Amrish Rana was convicted in FIR Nos. 489/1999, 419/2006, 537/2000, 69/2001, 677/2002, 40/2003, 73/2006, and 498/2002. An FIR No. 115/2013 is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. Aman Rana was convicted in FIR No. 216/15, and FIR No. 37/225 is pending against him. The other accused are yet to be arrested. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The petitioners would join the investigation, and they would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 5( 2025:HHC:18131 ) 5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioners have criminal antecedents. They were convicted by the Competent Court of law, and the cases are pending against them. They intimidated the drivers of the tipper and JCB. They did not cooperate with the investigation, and the recovery of the weapon of offence is yet to be effected from them. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed: “69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of 6( 2025:HHC:18131 ) anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.” 8. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held: “25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest, and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.” 9. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was observed: “21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of 7( 2025:HHC:18131 ) justice. The tightrope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 10. It was asserted in the petitions that the petitioner, Amrish Rana, went to the spot along with his friends after being told about illegal mining. Therefore, the presence of the petitioners on the spot is admitted. It was submitted that the petitioners are a public-spirited citizen and wanted to prevent illegal mining, however, they had sufficient time to associate the police and take them to the spot, however, instead of doing so, they went to the spot along with their friends, which casts doubt on their version. 11. It was specifically mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner, Amrish Rana, had threatened the informant and Rohit Kumar to pay him money. The driver of the vehicles specifically stated that the petitioner, Amrish Rana and his friends had intimidated them. Petitioner- Amrish Rana brandished a “darat” and threatened to kill the driver with it. These allegations are to be, prima facie, accepted as correct in the absence of a proper explanation for going to the spot, 8( 2025:HHC:18131 ) and they show the petitioners’ involvement in the commission of the crime. 12. The police asserted that the “darat” and the substance put in the engine are yet to be recovered. The petitioners joined the investigation but did not produce the weapon of the offence, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. This submission has force. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 that where custodial interrogation is required, pre-arrest bail should not be granted. It was observed: - “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often, interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offender” 9( 2025:HHC:18131 ) 13. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032, wherein it was observed: - “13. One of the significant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more effective to question a suspect. The cocoon of protection afforded by a bail order insulates the suspect, and he could thwart interrogation, reducing it to futile rituals. But it must be also kept in mind that while interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.” 14. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of pre- arrest bail may hamper the investigations. It was observed: “83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting useful information, and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences, would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 15. The status report shows that the petitioners have criminal antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024: HHC: 6091 and held, after referring to various judgments, that a Judge must consider 10( 2025:HHC:18131 ) the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of such offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 16. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner can become a threat to society because of his criminal antecedents, he should not be released on bail. It was observed: “27…..An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.” 17. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons were involved in the commission of an offence, similar offences, they should not be released on bail. It was observed: - “20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half years, apart from the fact that all the respondents are shown to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the chargesheet against the respondents, except accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, who are shown to have been involved in two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion High Court should not have taken a lenient view, 11( 2025:HHC:18131 ) more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA. 18 Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to bail because of their criminal antecedents. 19. No other point was urged. 20. In view of the above, the present petitions fail, and the same are dismissed. 21. The observations made here-in-before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 06th June, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)