IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1544 of 2025 Reserved on: 08.07.2025 Date of Decision:22.07.2025. Balbir 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 : Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocate. 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. 67 of 2025, dated 04.3.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316 (2), and 351 (2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 2. It has been asserted that an FIR No.67 of 2025 has been registered at the instance of one Ramesh Kumar. The petitioner was falsely arrayed as an accused. The prosecution's case is false. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2( 2025:HHC:23799 ) The contents of the FIR are highly unnatural and improbable. The petitioner is innocent and is not involved in the commission of an offence. He would abide by 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 was running a dhaba at Vardhman Chowk. He received a call from Paytm Company on 12.07.2024 that his account was to be audited. Balbir (the petitioner) came to the informant’s shop as a representative of the Company and took the informant’s phone. He returned the mobile phone after some time. The informant received a message at about 4.00 p.m. that an amount of ₹ 4,26,125/- was credited into his bank (State Bank of India) account. The informant called the petitioner, Balbir Singh, who assured to rectify the defect on the next day. The petitioner visited the informant's shop on 14.07.2024 and told him that in case the amount was transferred to the account of Paytm, a fee of ₹ 20 to 25 thousand would be deducted. He asked the informant to transfer the money to his account. The informant transferred the money to the informant's account. The informant received a call that he was not paying the loan instalments. The informant called the petitioner, who told him 3( 2025:HHC:23799 ) that he (the informant) had taken a loan, and the second loan would not be cleared until the first loan was cleared. The petitioner asked the informant to transfer ₹ 49,000/- to his account to clear the loan. The informant transferred the money; however, the petitioner stopped picking up the informant’s calls. The police registered an FIR and conducted the investigation. The details of the accounts were checked. It was found that₹4,25,126/-were transferred to the informant's account on 13.07.2024. Four transactions of ₹ 95,000/- were carried out from the informant's account to the account of Ravinder Kumar on 18.07.2024. ₹38427 was transferred to the account of Ravinder Kumar on 20.07.2024. and ₹ 49,000/- were transferred to the account of the petitioner on 16.9.2024. Ravinder Singh is the brother of the petitioner. The petitioner is to be interrogated, and the money paid by the informant is to be recovered. Hence the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Aakash Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Aakash Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely 4( 2025:HHC:23799 ) implicated. The petitioner and the informant had a financial transaction between them, and no case of cheating is made out. The criminal process is being misused to recover the money, which is impermissible; therefore, he prayed that the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had cheated the informant and transferred the money to his account and the account of his brother. The petitioner is to be interrogated, and the money transferred by him is 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 5( 2025:HHC:23799 ) 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 are considered to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes with 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 6( 2025:HHC:23799 ) 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 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: 7( 2025:HHC:23799 ) “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 cir- cumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely implicated 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 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 pronounce- ment 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 sup- port thereof, the severity of the punishment which con- viction will entail, the character of the accused, circum- stances 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 con- siderations 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 8( 2025:HHC:23799 ) and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, de- feat 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 allegations in the FIR show that the petitioner represented himself to be an employee of Paytm. He obtained the mobile phone of the informant, and a loan amount of ₹4,26,125/- was transferred to the informant's account in the evening. The informant called the petitioner, and the petitioner got transferred four instalments of ₹ 95,000/- each on 18.07.2024 and ₹ 38,427/- on 20.07.2024 to the account of his brother. The account details confirmed this fact. In addition to this, ₹ 49,000/- was transferred to the petitioner's account on 16.09.2024. These transactions prima facie support the informant’s version that the loan was credited to his account without his request, and he had transferred the money at the instance of the petitioner. 14 It was submitted that there was a business transaction between the informant and the petitioner. There is nothing in support of this submission. The nature of the business being undertaken by the petitioner and the informant was not mentioned in the petition seeking pre-arrest bail. The copy of the 9( 2025:HHC:23799 ) statement of account was not annexed to the petition to show that the informant had transferred the money earlier to the petitioner’s account. Thus, there is insufficient material to show that the petitioner and the informant had any business transactions, and the money was transferred pursuant to the business transactions between the parties. 15 It was submitted that allegations in the FIR are inherently improbable. The submissions cannot be accepted. The informant had an account with Paytm, and when he was asked to verify, it was natural for him to hand over his mobile phone to the official of Paytm. The allegations in the FIR are to be accepted as correct at this stage, and these allegations clearly show that the petitioner had obtained the loan in the informant’s name, induced the informant to transfer money to his brother’s account by making false representations. 16. It was submitted that the investigation is at an initial stage, and the petitioner is to be interrogated. This submission 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:- 10( 2025:HHC:23799 ) “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 disintering 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”. 17. 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.” 11( 2025:HHC:23799 ) 18. 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.” 19. Keeping in view these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be released on pre-arrest bail; hence, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 20. 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 22nd July, 2025 (veena) 12( 2025:HHC:23799 )