Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18949 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1306 of 2025 Reserved on: 05.06.2025 Date of Decision: 20.06.2025 Amarjit Singh .Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : M/s Ankit Kohli and Ashir Kaith, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 22 of 2025, dated 21.03.2025, registered at Police Station Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 310(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that, as per the prosecution, the informant-Vikram 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18949 ) Jeet Singh, heard commotion outside his liquor store on 20.03.2025 and saw 6-7 individuals. They tried to attack the informant with Kirpan and stole the cash worth ₹ 40,000/- from the counter. The police registered the FIR. The petitioner is wanted for the commission of the aforesaid offence. The petitioner is a young person aged 25 years. He has a family to support. He is the sole earning member of the family. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, the petition. 3. The State has filed an FIR in which it was asserted that the informant made a complaint to the police stating that he was present in the liquor vend on 20.03.2025 at about 10:00 pm. He heard some noise outside the shop. He came out of the shop and found 6-7 people outside the shop. They attacked him with kripans. They snatched ₹ 40,000/- kept in the cash box. 4. I have heard Mr. Ankit Kohli and Mr. Ashir Kaith, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Ankit Kohli and Mr. Ashir Kaith, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18949 ) he was falsely implicated. His name was not mentioned in the FIR. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He, along with others, had stolen ₹ 40,000/- after attacking the informant with kripans. The investigation is being conducted. The kripans and the money are to be recovered; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. 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 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18949 ) 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.” 9. 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 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18949 ) we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.” 10. 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.” 11. It is apparent from the FIR that 6-7 persons attacked the informant with kripans and stole ₹ 40,000/- kept in the shop. These allegations prima facie make out a case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the IPC. The offence is heinous and is punishable with imprisonment for life. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the gravity of the punishment, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18949 ) 12. It was submitted that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. This submission cannot be accepted. The investigation is continuing. The identification parade is to be conducted; therefore, it is premature to say that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of the offence. 13. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the kripans and the money are yet to be recovered. This is to be accepted as correct. 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 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18949 ) 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” 14. 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.” 15. 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.” 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18949 ) 16. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 17. 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 20th June, 2025 (saurav pathania)