( 2025:HHC:16517 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1126 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.05.2025 Date of Decision: 29 .05.2025. Ankush Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bunesh Pal, Advocate. 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 has been asserted that an FIR No. 44 of 2025, dated 17.04.2025, was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(4) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. The petitioner is working as a driver. He belongs to a respectable family. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner, along with Sunny and Rishu, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:16517 ) had assaulted Rishi Pal on the night of 16.04.2025. They snatched the gold chain and currency notes worth ₹50,000/- from the informant. They also threw the informant’s motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-18A-1622 into the river. The petitioner filed a petition seeking pre- arrest bail, which was dismissed on the ground that the offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous. The informant is also a driver and was involved in many cases of Narcotics. The investigation is complete, and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is the only breadwinner of the family. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 2. The State has filed a copy of the FIR asserting that the informant was going to Bankala on 16.04.2025 on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-18A-6322. A car bearing registration No. HP-71A-4141 stopped the motorcycle. Sunny, Anku and Rishu came out of the car and started beating the informant. Sunny took out a sharp- edged gandansa and inflicted injuries on the informant’s shoulder, neck, stomach and right arm. Sunny snatched the informant’s chain worth ₹50,000/-. They threatened to kill the informant. The informant ran towards the temple. But he was beaten near the temple. The informant shouted for help. Shashi Kant & Paras Nath rescued him. The informant’s motorcycle was also thrown into the river. 3 ( 2025:HHC:16517 ) 3. I have heard Mr. Bunesh Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Bunesh Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The informant made a false complaint against the petitioner and other persons. He (informant) has criminal antecedents and was involved in many cases of Narcotics. As per the FIR, Sunny had snatched the gold chain and ₹50,000/- from the informant. No specific role was attributed to the petitioner. 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 is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had joined the co- accused and shared the common intention to beat and rob the informant. The investigation is at the initial stage. The police are to recover the weapon of offence and the article robbed from the informant. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The offence was committed in broad daylight, and keeping 4 ( 2025:HHC:16517 ) in view the nature of the offence, the petitioner should not be released on bail. Hence, 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 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 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: 5 ( 2025:HHC:16517 ) “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 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.” 6 ( 2025:HHC:16517 ) 10. The FIR mentions that the informant’s motorcycle was intercepted with the help of a car bearing registration No. HP-71A- 4141. The petitioner and other co-accused came out of the car and gave beatings to the informant. Sunny inflicted injuries using a sharp-edged gandasa. The informant ran towards the temple; however, the petitioner and the co-accused followed him and gave him beatings near the temple. This showed that the petitioner shared the common intention of the co-accused. Hence, prima facie, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he was not involved in the commission of the robbery is not acceptable. 11. The FIR was registered on 17.04.2025. The investigation is at the initial stage. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the offence was committed in the broad daylight in a public place and affects the public safety. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this consideration as well. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner is to be interrogated and recoveries are to be made from him. 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: - 7 ( 2025:HHC:16517 ) “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” 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: 8 ( 2025:HHC:16517 ) “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. Keeping in view the manner in which the offence was committed, 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 heretofore 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)