( 2025:HHC:16518 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1128 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.05.2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025 Pravesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : M/s. L.S. Mehta & Virender Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent – State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It is asserted that the police had registered an FIR No. 126 of 2025, dated 18.04.2025 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103 & 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short BNS) at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. regarding the murder of informant’s brother namely, Satyaveer by Darshan Singh and other persons. The police arrested Darshan Singh and Hansi Devi, who are in judicial custody. The allegations in the FIR are false. 2( 2025:HHC:16518 ) The petitioner has no role in the commission of the crime, and there is no direct evidence linking the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The petitioner is the relative of the deceased. Darshan Singh is a Labour Contractor. The petitioner, as well as the deceased, were working under Darahsn Singh in the Nalagarh Area. The petitioner has no role in the alleged offence. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when directed to do so. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a copy of the FIR, in which it was mentioned that the informant’s brother Satyaveer, his wife Hansi and children resided at Dantewal, Nalagarh. Hansi Devi and Darshan Singh had extramarital relations with each other. This led to the dispute between Darshan Singh and Satyaveer. Hansi Devi, Darshan Singh, the petitioner, and some other persons murdered Satyaveer Singh on 16.04.2025. The informant insisted upon the postmortem examination of the deceased, however, Hansi Devi and Darshan Singh opposed it. An attempt was made to cremate the body, however, the matter was reported to the police by the nephew of the informant. The police prevented the cremation and taken the dead body in their possession. 3( 2025:HHC:16518 ) 3. I have heard M/s L.S. Mehta & Virender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. L.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons, and the petitioner has no role to play in the commission of a crime. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR as the person who had committed the murder of Satyaveer with Darshan Singh and Hansi Devi. The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous. The investigation is continuing. The release of the petitioner on bail will affect the investigation. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition 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 4( 2025:HHC:16518 ) 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 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 5( 2025:HHC:16518 ) 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 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 specifically mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner, Hansi Devi and Darshan Singh had murdered Satyaveer Singh. Therefore, the submission that the petitioner was not named in the FIR is not correct. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations is not to be seen at the stage of granting bail. The allegations in the FIR prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of a heinous 6( 2025:HHC:16518 ) offence which is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 11. It was submitted that the petitioner will join the investigation, and his liberty should not be curtailed. This submission is stated to be rejected. The nature of the offence is the primary consideration while granting bail. Since the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR; therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on a pre-arrest bail. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner is to be interrogated to ascertain the names of other co-accused. The links in the commission of crime are also to be ascertained. 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 7( 2025:HHC:16518 ) 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” 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 investigation. 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.” 8( 2025:HHC:16518 ) 15. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 16. The observations made here-in-before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 29th May, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)