2025:HHC:35161 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2414 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.10.2025 Date of Decision: 16.10.2025. Kartik Verma ...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 Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 31 of 2025, dated 28.09.2025, registered at Women Police Station, Una, District Una, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. It has been asserted that the bare reading of the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of any offence against the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:35161 petitioner, and false allegations were levelled against him. An engagement ceremony was held between the petitioner and the victim on 24.11.2024 in the presence of their relatives and friends. This fact was admitted by the victim in her complaint. The relationship between the parties was based on mutual consent, love and affection. The petitioner was serving in the Indian Army and was performing his duties towards the Nation. The victim was in a hurry to marry the petitioner. The petitioner tried to make the victim understand that he had to marry his younger sister first. The victim lodged a false complaint in retaliation. The bail is a rule, and jail is an exception. The petitioner 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 victim made a complaint to the police, asserting that the petitioner promised to marry her and maintained physical relations with her for three years. The petitioner also introduced his sister to the victim, who was aware of the relationship between the petitioner and the victim. The petitioner subsequently refused to marry the victim. The petitioner’s sister used to talk to the victim and assure her that 3 2025:HHC:35161 the petitioner would marry her. When the victim asked the petitioner about the marriage, he threatened to make her nude picture viral on social media. The victim made a complaint to the police. Petitioner’s father and relatives promised to marry the petitioner to the victim. An engagement ceremony was performed between the petitioner and the victim on 24.11.2024; however, the petitioner and his relatives did not remain in touch with the victim after the engagement. The victim went to the place of the petitioner’s posting, and the petitioner sought two months to perform the marriage. The petitioner and his sister subsequently blocked the victim’s mobile number. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The victim’s statement was recorded. Samples were seized. The police went to arrest the petitioner, but his Commanding Officer did not permit them to arrest him. The petitioner has switched off his mobile phone. He would intimidate the witnesses. The evidence is yet to be collected, and the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Dheeraj K. Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4 2025:HHC:35161 5. Mr. Dheeraj K Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The relationship between the parties was consensual, and the petitioner had no intention to deceive the victim. The petitioner promised to marry the victim after the marriage of his younger sister, but the victim insisted on the marriage. She lodged the F.I.R. to pressurise the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the pre-arrest bail be granted to the petitioner. 6. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner made a false promise to marry the victim and entered into physical relations with her. He had no intention to perform the marriage, which is evident from his subsequent conduct. The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of the grant of bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2025:HHC:35161 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, an 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 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. It was submitted that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. This submission will not help the petitioner. It was laid down in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, that anticipatory bail is not the rule. It was observed: 6 2025:HHC:35161 “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.” (Emphasis supplied) 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 7 2025:HHC:35161 court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 11. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner promised to marry the victim and entered into a physical relationship with her. He also introduced his younger sister to the victim, who also assured the victim that the petitioner would marry her. Thus, a positive impression was created that the petitioner would marry the victim. The victim entered into a physical relationship with the petitioner based on this impression. Subsequently, the petitioner did not honour his promise. When the victim complained to the police, the petitioner and his relatives solemnised the engagement ceremony between the petitioner and the victim. However, the petitioner threatened the victim to make her nude picture viral on social media. He and his sister blocked the victim on their mobile phones. The subsequent conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that he had no intention to solemnise the marriage with the victim. A person intending to marry a girl does not threaten to make her nude picture viral on social media rather protects her honour at any 8 2025:HHC:35161 cost. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC as he had obtained the consent of the victim by making a false representation without any intention to honour it. 13. The victim was subjected to a medical examination. The samples have been collected and sent to the RFSL. The report from RFSL is awaited. The investigation is continuing, and granting bail to the petitioner would be harmful to the ongoing investigation. It was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ms X versus State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 STPL 3386 SC, [2023(2) Crimes 66 (SC)] that pre-arrest bail should not be granted in an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. It was observed: “22. Surprisingly, none of the aforesaid aspects have been touched upon in both the impugned orders. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence have been disregarded. So has the financial stature, position and standing of the accused vis-a-vis the appellant/prosecutrix been ignored? The High Court has granted anticipatory bail in favour of the respondent No. 2/accused in a brief order of three paragraphs, having been swayed by the 'star variations in the narration of the prosecutrix' implying thereby that what was originally recorded in the FIR, did not make out an offence of rape, as defined in Section 375 IPC, which is an erroneous assumption. Even if the first Supplementary statement of the appellant/prosecutrix recorded in the evening hours of 6th August 2022, the date on which the 9 2025:HHC:35161 FIR had been registered against the respondent No.2/accused in the first half of the same day, her second Supplementary statement recorded on 6th September 2022 and the Medico-Legal Report of the doctor who had examined the appellant/prosecutrix on 8th August 2022, are kept aside for a moment, we find that there was still sufficient material in the FIR that would prima facie attract the provision of Section 376, IPC. In our opinion, these factors ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of respondent No.2/accused for granting him anticipatory bail. 14. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of the offence, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. 15. It was submitted on behalf of the State that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for investigating the offences. Keeping in view the nature of the offences and the stage of the investigation, this plea is acceptable. 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 disintering 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 10 2025:HHC:35161 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 also be 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.” 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 11 2025:HHC:35161 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, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted on this consideration as well. 19. The present petition shows that the petitioner has approached this Court directly. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal C versus State of Kerala and Anr. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6588 of 2025, decided on 08.09.2025, that the party should not be encouraged to approach the High Court directly without approaching the Court of Sessions. It was observed: - “We find that in this case, the petitioners had approached the High Court directly for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for short, ‘BNSS’), without first approaching the Sessions Court for the said relief. We are of the opinion that though the concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the Sessions Court and the High Court to entertain a prayer for pre- arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 CrPC), the hierarchy of Courts demands that no person seeking such remedy should be encouraged or allowed to directly approach the High Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 CrPC) by bypassing the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Court. 7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrPC in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise 12 2025:HHC:35161 distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court, which would have direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have immediate access to the Case Diary, thereby facilitating a better appreciation of the facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications, thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking a remedy of pre- arrest bail, there is a strong probability that a significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only, thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail, and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/extraordinary circumstances.” 20. This position was reiterated in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108, wherein it was observed: “6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste with which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction 13 2025:HHC:35161 to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that the High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly intervening itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-complainant as a party.” 21. Therefore, the present petition should not have been filed before this Court and is also liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 22. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 23. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th October,, 2025 (ravinder)