Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21184 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1441 of 2025 Reserved on: 25.06.2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 Lakhwinder 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. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate. For the Respondent – State : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General with HC Naresh Kumar, NO.62, IO PS Nalagarh, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.229 of 2024, dated 14.08.2024, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He is apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid FIR. As per the prosecution, the motorcycle bearing registration Nos. HP-24C-8381 and HP-12K-7696 were found missing on 03.08.2024. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21184 ) The police registered the FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS. Subsequently, Sections 317(2) and 3(5) were also added. The motorcycle was seized at Kathgarh. Punjab. An FIR No.89/2024 dated 25.08.2024 was registered at Police Station Kathgarh, Punjab in which the petitioner was named as an accused. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail at Kathgarh, Punjab. The petitioner does not have a criminal history, and he would cooperate with the investigation. He would comply with the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-24C-8321 in the parking of Nalagarh Hospital on 30.07.2024. He returned on 03.8.2024 and found that the motorcycle was missing. Another motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12K-7696 was also found missing. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The informant revealed that his motorcycle was found in Kathgarh, Punjab. The Police went to Kathgarh, Punjab, and it was found that the motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-24C-8381 was seized in FIR No.89/2024 dated 25.08.2024. Gurmeet Singh was arrested in the aforesaid FIR. His custody was transferred. He revealed on inquiry that Lakhwinder 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21184 ) Singh, the present petitioner, had handed over the motorcycle to Gagandeep, son of Gurmeet Singh. Gagandeep Singh was interrogated, and he revealed that the petitioner had sold the motorcycle to him for ₹8,000/-. The petitioner is to be interrogated regarding the other thefts committed in the area. The motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12K-7696 is also to be recovered; hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; therefore, 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 two motorcycles were stolen on the same day from Nalagarh. The petitioner is to be interrogated regarding the circumstances in which the theft was committed. The recovery of another motorcycle is also to be effected. The petitioner 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21184 ) has sold the motorcycle to Gagandeep for ₹ 8,000/-, which prima facie shows that the petitioner has committed the offence for monetary gain. He is to be interrogated regarding the circumstances of the case; hence, 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 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.” 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21184 ) 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 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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21184 ) 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 seri- ous offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Antici- patory 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 politi- cally motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circum- stances have been made out by the petitioner-accused for the grant of anticipatory bail, and there is no frivolity in the prose- cution. 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 na- ture 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 legisla- 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21184 ) ture 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 bal- ance the cause of the accused and the cause of public jus- tice. 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. 13. The status report shows that the petitioner had sold the motorcycle to the co-accused Gagandeep Singh for ₹8,000/-. Therefore, prima facie, he was found in possession of the stolen motorcycle immediately after the theft, and there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the theft. 14. Two motorcycles were found missing on the same day. The police recovered one motorcycle, and the other motorcycle is yet to be recovered. The police submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to determine the circumstances in which the theft was committed and recover another motorcycle. It was laid down 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21184 ) 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 in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offender”. 15. 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 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21184 ) solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.” 16. 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.” 17. Keeping in view these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be released on pre-arrest bail; hence, 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 04th July, 2025 (Saurav pathania)