2025:HHC:20449 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1401 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.06.2025 Date of Decision: 30.06.2025 Jagpal Singh Rana ...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. H.S.Rana, Advocate. For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General with ASI Shanta, I.O. WPS Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 40 of 2025, dated 16.04.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 308(4), 324(5), 351(2), 352, 62, 111(2)(B), 238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short BNS), 2023 at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:20449 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is pursuing an LLB Course. Amrish Rana approached him to prepare a complaint regarding illegal mining. The petitioner prepared the complaint as desired. He was not present on the spot. His name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. He is apprehensive that the police would arrest him. He is a member of an NGO which is working for a drug-free Himachal Pradesh. There is no possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, Kunwar Sandeep Singh, made a complaint to the police stating that he had established Thakur Stone Crusher Guglehar about 03 years before the incident. He had employed the drivers to drive the vehicles and the JCB. Amrish Rana visited the Swan River on 12.04.2025 with his friends and threatened the drivers. He again visited the spot on 15.04.2025 at about 10:00 pm with Amit Mankotia in the vehicles bearing registration No. HP67-9251 and HP72D-0695. They threatened Shiv Kumar, the driver of the JCB and Sanjay Rana, the driver of the tipper. Amrish Rana had a “darat”, and he threatened to kill 3 2025:HHC:20449 the drivers on failure to accompany him. The drivers drove the vehicles to the Swan River. Amrish Rana and his friends put something into the engine and deflated the tyres of the tipper. Amrish Rana had already threatened the informant and Rohit Kumar to face dire consequences on failure to pay money to him. Police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. It was found that Amrish Rana had threatened the informant and Rohit Kumar for ransom. The “darat” used during the incident and the substance put by the accused in the engine are to be recovered. The call detail record of the petitioner shows that he was present at the place of the incident. Police searched for the petitioner but could not apprehend him. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He had only prepared a complaint at the instance of Amrish Rana. He was not present on the spot. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, 4 2025:HHC:20449 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 bail petition filed by the co-accused has already been dismissed by this Court. The petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous offence. His presence on the spot is duly confirmed by the call detail record. 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 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 5 2025:HHC:20449 application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors are considered 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 6 2025:HHC:20449 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 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 7 2025:HHC:20449 any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the 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. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8 2025:HHC:20449 13. A perusal of the status report shows that Amrish Rana and his friends went to the riverbed on 15.04.2025 and threatened the drivers of the Tipper and JCB. They deflated the tyres of the Tipper and JCB and put something in the engine, which resulted in the stalling of engine. Amrish Rana had earlier threatened the informant and Rohit Kumar Mehta and demanded money from them. These allegations are, prima facie, serious and show that Amrish Rana and his friends had taken the law into their own hands. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner was not present on the spot. This is not acceptable. The call details record shows his presence on the spot at the time of incident. The investigation is at the initial stage. The test identification parade of the petitioner is yet to be conducted. The result of the investigation cannot be pre-judged at this stage, and the police have to be afforded an opportunity to investigate the case as per law. 15. The status report further shows that the recovery of the ‘DARAT’ and the mobile phone are yet to be effected; therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma 9 2025:HHC:20449 (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 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” 16. 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 10 2025:HHC:20449 one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.” 17. 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.” 18 Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. 19. No other point was urged. 20. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 21. 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) 30th June 2025 Judge (ravinder)