Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1382 of 2025 Reserved on : 19.06.2025 Date of Decision: 27.06.2025 Daler Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent– State : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General with SI Ashok Kumar, IO PS Amb, District Una, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 48/2025, dated 22.04.2025, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(1), 340(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Amb, for the release of his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-19F-4707, which was seized by the 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) police under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act (‘MV Act’) on 11.04.2025. A fine of ₹15,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 185 of the MV Act. The petitioner produced his driving license, which was suspended for six months, and the driving license was sent to the Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, for necessary action. Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb informed that the driving license was issued to one Shalinder Singh, and the petitioner had filed a forged driving license before the Court. The police registered the FIR as per the direction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb. The petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the offence, and there is no evidence against him. The petitioner does not have any criminal history, and he would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose, hence the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Amb, District Una, sent a letter to the police stating that the driving license No.HP-19202000000, produced by the petitioner, was issued to one Shalinder Singh and the driving license produced by the petitioner before the Court was forged. The police registered 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) the FIR and conducted the investigation. It was found that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-19F-4707 was seized by the police. The petitioner filed an application for its release and produced his driving license. The Court suspended the license for six months and wrote a letter to the Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, to make an endorsement to this effect; however, Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, reported that the license was not issued to the petitioner but to Shalinder Singh. The petitioner joined the investigation as per the order of the learned Sessions Court and disclosed that he had paid ₹10,000/- to Puneet Kumar. He also handed over his Aadhar Card and the photographs to Puneet Kumar. Puneet Kumar handed over the license to him, and the petitioner was not aware that the license was forged. Puneet Kumar was also interrogated, and he disclosed that he never obtained ₹10,000/- from the petitioner. The petitioner has not disclosed anything regarding the forgery of the driving license. Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, also informed that the license produced by the petitioner is not issued by Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, and it bears the digital signatures of Registering and Licensing Authority, Dehra. Registering and Licensing Authority, Dehra, revealed that the digital signatures 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) were scanned by someone and the license was forged. The police searched for the petitioner, but he has absconded. The petitioner is to be interrogated, and the involvement of other persons in the forgery of the license is to be ascertained; hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Rajat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Rajat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is nothing to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The mistake was committed by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, by issuing two licenses against the same serial numbers, and the petitioner should not be penalised for the fault of the Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb. The petitioner would join the investigation as and when directed to do so; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was in possession of the forged license. He claimed that the license 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) was forged by Puneet Kumar, but Puneet Kumar denied any such forgery. The involvement of other persons is to be ascertained. The forging of a driving license is serious because it affects the safety of the public. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the role of other persons in the commission of the crime; 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 of the case 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 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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) 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 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 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) 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 was held in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 that pre-arrest bail can be granted in exceptional circumstances where the Court is of the view that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case, and the presumption of innocence cannot be a reason to grant bail. It was observed at page 501: “21. The parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) petitioner-accused for the grant of anticipatory bail, and there is no frivolity in the prosecution. 22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 563], wherein this Court expressed thus: (SCC p. 465, para 34) “34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis in original and supplied) 23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for the grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 12. A perusal of the status report shows that the driving license bearing the serial number HP 1920200000066 was issued in the name of Shalinder Singh. The officials of the Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, disclosed that the license produced by 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) the petitioner was not issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, and it bears the scanned signatures of the Registering and Licensing Authority, Dehra. The official of the Registering and Licensing Authority, Dehra, disclosed that the license was not issued from their office and signatures were put on the license after scanning. Therefore, it is apparent at this stage that the license produced by the petitioner was not issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, and the submission that the Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, was at fault by issuing two driving licenses against one serial number is not correct. The Registering and Licensing Authority, Amb, had only issued the driving license to Shalinder Singh and not to the petitioner. Hence, the license produced by the petitioner is prima facie forged. The petitioner is the best person to state from whom he had taken the license. He claimed that the license was handed over to him by Puneet, but Puneet denied this fact. The forgery of the license is a serious offence because it is the forgery of a Government document, and driving the vehicle based on a forged license can result in injury/danger to the public. 13. The petitioner produced the driving license before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) which shows that the petitioner had attempted to mislead a public authority. This makes the offence even more grave. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that forgery of the driving license is serious offence because a person who knows nothing about driving and possessing a false license compromises the safety of the public; therefore, it is necessary to find out the persons who had helped in the forgery of the license. The petitioner was interrogated after he was released on interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; however, he failed to disclose the names of the persons who assisted him in the forgery. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 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 much 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 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) 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” 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, 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20104 ) we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 16. No other point was urged. 17. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 18. 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 27th June, 2025 (saurav pathania)