( 2025:HHC:22687 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1526 of 2025 Reserved on: 1.7.2025 Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 Munish Soni …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent – State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre- arrest bail in FIR No.97 of 2024, dated 16.06.2025, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 64, 78 and 351 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 67 of the Information and Technology (I.T.) Act. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The informant alleged in the FIR that the petitioner was blackmailing her. She was in a relationship with him. She went to a 2( 2025:HHC:22687 ) room where the petitioner clicked her photographs. He threatened to upload her photographs on social media. The petitioner is innocent and he had not clicked her photographs. He received the photographs on his mobile number through WhatsApp. The petitioner informed the victim and her aunt about the victim’s photographs. The informant filed a false FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner’s wife is pregnant, and he is required to take care of her. The petitioner would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. He would comply with the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence the petition. 3. The State has filed a copy of the FIR in which it was asserted that the victim was in a relationship with the petitioner. She went with the petitioner to her room, where he clicked her photographs. He started threatening the victim to upload her photographs on social media. The victim also talked to the informant’s wife, but she also did not take any action. The petitioner uploaded her photographs on social media. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. 3( 2025:HHC:22687 ) 4. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner never clicked the victim’s photographs; rather, the photographs were sent to him by someone on his WhatsApp number. He had informed the victim and her aunt about the photographs. However, a false case was made against him. 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. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The police are yet to recover the mobile phone containing the indecent photographs of the victim. The petitioner can upload the photographs in case the mobile phone remains with him. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4( 2025:HHC:22687 ) 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.” 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 5( 2025:HHC:22687 ) 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 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 6( 2025:HHC:22687 ) 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 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) 7( 2025:HHC:22687 ) 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. 13. The allegations in the FIR show that the petitioner had clicked the victim’s photographs. He threatened to upload them on social media and, in fact, uploaded one photograph on social media. 14 It was submitted that these allegations are false. The petitioner never clicked any photograph of the information, and the photograph was sent to him on his WhatsApp by another mobile number. The petitioner had only informed the victim and her aunt about the photographs. This submission cannot be accepted. The Court has to take the allegations in the FIR as prima facie correct, and it is impermissible for this Court to say that the allegations are false. The police are conducting the investigation to find out the source of the photograph uploaded on social media. The device from which the photograph was uploaded has yet to be recovered. 8( 2025:HHC:22687 ) 15 One photograph of the victim has already been uploaded on social media, and in case the petitioner remains in possession of the remaining photographs, the chances of their upload cannot be ruled out. This would damage the reputation of the informant and cannot be allowed. 16 The police asserted that the mobile phone containing the indecent photographs is yet to be recovered, for which purpose the custodial interrogation is required. 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 in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of 9( 2025:HHC:22687 ) 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.” 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. 10( 2025:HHC:22687 ) 20. 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 14th July, 2025 (mamta)