2025:HHC:19445 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399 and 1400 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.06.2025 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 1396 of 2025 Dulu Deen ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1397 of 2025 Limha Bibi @ Halima Bibi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 1398 of 2025 Jumma Deen @ Bachhu Deen ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 1399 of 2025 Veeru Deen ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 2 2025:HHC:19445 5. Cr.MP(M) No. 1400 of 2025 Roshan Khan @ Sadik Mohammad ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner(s) : M/s M.A. Safee and Ashok Chaudhary, Advocates, in all the petitions. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge All the petitions have been filed for seeking pre-arrest bail in the same FIR; hence, these are being taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 48 of 2025, dated 4.5.2025, was registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(2), 87, 96, 115(2), 137(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(2), 351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 3 2025:HHC:19445 and Sections 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The petitioners apprehend their arrest in the aforesaid FIR. The petitioners are innocent and were falsely implicated. They belong to a respectable section of society. They have nothing to do with the commission of the offences. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining them in custody. They would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petitions. 3. The State has filed copy of the FIR in which it was asserted that the informant is a resident of Jawali. His Uncle and his wife came to the informant’s house on 3.5.2025 in a Bolero. The informant, his family members, his uncle and his aunt were present in the house. On 4.5.2025, at about 2.30 a.m., the informant heard some noise. He tried to open the door when Beeru Deen, Liyakat Ali, Bachu Deen and Baru Deen came inside the room. Beeru Deen and Liyakat Ali were armed with an iron pipe. They abused the informant and his family members and inquired where the minor and another female were concealed, and they (the assailants) had come to take them. The informant asked them (the assailants) not to do so. The assailants inflicted blows with iron pipes on the informant and his wife. The 4 2025:HHC:19445 informant came out and saw that Dullu Deen, Hussain Ali alias Chopra, Haleema Bibi and Sadiq Mohammad were quarrelling with the informant’s mother. They inflicted injuries on the informant’s mother with sticks. They took the minor and another woman with them. They also damaged the tractor and the Bolero. The informant called for the Ambulance. The injured were taken to CHC Nagrota Suriyan, and the intimation was given to the police. The police visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the informant. 4. I have heard Mr. M.A. Safee, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. M.A. Safee, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The parties have a dispute, and the FIR was lodged due to the enmity. The Bolero vehicle was seized by the police in Punjab and was not damaged in the incident. A false FIR was lodged by the informant party. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he 5 2025:HHC:19445 prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioners had trespassed into the house of the informant in the middle of the night. They took away one minor and one woman with them and gave beatings to the occupants of the house. The police have to recover the weapons of offence from the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions 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 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 6 2025:HHC:19445 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 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 7 2025:HHC:19445 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. A perusal of the FIR shows that the petitioners entered the house of the informant in the middle of the night at about 2.30 AM. They were armed with sticks and an iron pipe. They inflicted injuries on the informant party and took away a minor and another woman with them. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), POCSO Kangra at Dharamshala reveals that the minor made a statement that she was kept in the house of Veeru Deen and was raped by Liyakat Ali four times. This shows the gravity of the offence because the victim was taken with the intent that she would be 8 2025:HHC:19445 forced to illicit intercourse. The manner in which the attack was mounted shows the grave nature of the crime. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioners cannot be released on bail. 12. It was submitted that the weapons of offence are yet to be recovered. This plea has force. The weapons of offence are necessary to establish the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. 13. 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 9 2025:HHC:19445 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.” 10 2025:HHC:19445 16. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be released on pre-arrest bail at this stage. Hence, the present petitions fail, and the same are dismissed. 17. The observations made heretofore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 24th June, 2025 (Chander)