Judgment : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 80 of 2025, dated 06.09.2025, registered at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. It has been asserted that the police registered the FIR on the complaint of one Brahm Singh, Beat Incharge, Forest Block Fatehpur on the allegations that Khair trees were cut and stolen. One vehicle was spotted in the CCTV footage, but its registration number was not legible. The petitioners were not named in the FIR, and the police are searching for them. The petitioners have no concern with the alleged felling of the tree or the vehicle spotted in the CCTV footage. The petitioners have a reasonable apprehension of their arrest. They would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition(s). 3. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant was on patrolling duty on 06.09.2025 at 8:30 AM in UP 130 Bagdoli C-3, and he noticed the seven stumps of khair trees. He found after enquiry that the trees were cut on the night of 06.09.2025 between 1:00 a.m. to 3:30 a.m. He informed his superior officer, who checked the CCTV footage and found a vehicle going towards the spot at 1:53 a.m. on 06.09.2025. However, its registration number was not legible. The CCTV camera footage at Sihana and Dini was also checked, and the same vehicle was spotted in the CCTV footage. The trees were removed from the spot. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police checked the CCTV footage and found the registration number of the vehicle to be HP 88A- 2879, which was registered in the name of Balwinder. Another vehicle was found following this vehicle, but it had no rear registration plate. The police searched for Balwinder Singh alias Banti and checked his call details. The location of Balwinder Singh was found to be similar to the location of another mobile number XXXX951. Balwinder Singh had also talked to this mobile number and XXX849 at 2:46 am. These mobile numbers were found to belong to Anil Kumar and Ajay Kumar. The police searched for Balwinder Singh alias Banti and checked his call details. The location of Balwinder Singh was found to be similar to the location of another mobile number XXXX951. Balwinder Singh had also talked to this mobile number and XXX849 at 2:46 am. These mobile numbers were found to belong to Anil Kumar and Ajay Kumar. Neeraj Bala wife of petitioner Balwinder appeared before the police and informed that Balwinder Singh was arrested in FIR No. 28 of 2025, dated 8.9.2025, registered at Police Station Sansarpur Terrace for the commission of offences punishable under Section Sections 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act on 20.9.2025. 30 FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, Balwinder Singh, in various Police Stations. FIR No. 28 of 2025, dated 8.9.2025, was registered against petitioner Ajay Kumar for the commission of offence punishable under Section 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act at Police Station Sansarpur Terrace. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel, for the petitioners and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. They were arrested in another FIR and could not join the investigation. Hence would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioners were earlier involved in the commission of similar offences. 30 FIRs are registered against petitioner Balwinder Singh, and one FIR is registered against petitioner Ajay Kumar. The police are yet to recover the stolen articles and the vehicle in which the timber was transported, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The police are yet to recover the stolen articles and the vehicle in which the timber was transported, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions 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, 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. 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. 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 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. The present petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The status report specifically mentions that the co-accused, Balwinder Singh, had talked on mobile No. xxxx849 and xxxx951, which were owned by the petitioner Ajay Kumar and co-accused Anil Kumar. Their location was also found to be the same. The vehicle bearing registration No.HP-88A-2879 was also registered in the name of Balwinder Singh. These circumstances, prima facie connect the petitioner Ajay Kumar and Balwinder Singh to the commission of the crime. 13. Their location was also found to be the same. The vehicle bearing registration No.HP-88A-2879 was also registered in the name of Balwinder Singh. These circumstances, prima facie connect the petitioner Ajay Kumar and Balwinder Singh to the commission of the crime. 13. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the police are yet to recover the stolen property of the vehicle, which was used for transporting the timber, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. This submission has 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:- “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” 14. 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. 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.” 15. 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.” 16. The status report shows that 30 FIRs are registered against the petitioner, Balwinder Singh and one FIR is registered against the petitioner, Ajay Kumar. The petitioner, Balwinder Kumar, stated in para-4 of the petition that 25 false cases wereplanted against him in other Police Stations, wherein he earned acquittal, but in one or two cases, he was sentenced. Petitioner Ajay Kumar submitted in para-4 of the petition that he is facing one criminal case in the State of Punjab under the Forest Act. He did not give the details of the cases against him. It was laid down by this Court in Prem Singh vs. State of H.P. 2020 (1) Shim. L.C. 476 that a person seeking bail should mention the pendency of the criminal cases against him in the bail petition. It was observed: “7. The burden is on the petitioner to mention his criminal history. The data bank of the State and the Country is not elaborate enough to contain the criminal history of every accused. Apart from that, there would be some cases where the petitioner might have committed serious offences outside India. It was observed: “7. The burden is on the petitioner to mention his criminal history. The data bank of the State and the Country is not elaborate enough to contain the criminal history of every accused. Apart from that, there would be some cases where the petitioner might have committed serious offences outside India. As such, the burden is on the petitioner to mention all such facts in the bail petition. 8. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, mandates that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 17. A direction was issued to the petitioners to mention the criminal history in the bail petition. It was observed: “15. Given above, henceforth it is obligatory that in every bail petition, the petitioner must mention about all pending FIRs and pending criminal trials, where the sentence provided is seven years or more. Furthermore, the petitioner must specify details of all cases where he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. 16. In addition to the above, in every bail petition filed in any Court within the jurisdiction of the State of Himachal Pradesh, the State/Respondent(s) shall explicitly mention in the status report about the criminal history. In bail petitions where there is no pleading about the criminal history, then the State/Respondent(s) shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Court about the non-mentioning of the criminal history. In such a situation, it shall be for the concerned Court to take a call, if it so desires, depending upon the facts of each case.” 18. A similar direction was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munnesh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein it was observed: “11. However, before parting, we consider it necessary to dwell on one aspect. A growing trend is being noticed of individuals seeking from this Court the concession of bail or concession of protection from arrest, not disclosing in the special leave petitions their involvement in other criminal cases. However, before parting, we consider it necessary to dwell on one aspect. A growing trend is being noticed of individuals seeking from this Court the concession of bail or concession of protection from arrest, not disclosing in the special leave petitions their involvement in other criminal cases. In such cases where involvement is not disclosed, on a prima facie satisfaction that long incarceration without reasonable progress in the trial is invading the right to life of the accused or that the offences for which the FIR has been registered are not too serious, notices are issued and only thereafter, information of criminal antecedents is being provided in the counter affidavits filed by the respective respondents-States, as in the present case. The result is that this Court, being the apex court of the country, is being taken for a ride. This Court has shown leniency in the past, but we think it is time that such a state of affairs is not allowed to continue further. 12. We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/sessions  courts  declining  prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily disclose in the ‘SYNOPSIS’ that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition. 13. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition. 13. We are conscious that complying with this direction could result in inconvenience for some; however, having noticed that orders dated 13th October, 2023 and 19th October, 2023 of this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 12876 of 2023 Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and SLP (Crl.) No. 2863 of 2023Sheikh Bhola v. State of Bihar, respectively, requiring steps to be initiated for eliciting proper and correct information from the individuals seeking orders of regular bail/pre-arrest bail have not produced the desired results, we have proceeded to make the aforesaid direction in the institutional interest so that proceedings before this Court are not taken lightly by those who choose to approach it and the process of law is not abused. 19. It was laid down by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Deen Mohd. Vs State of Haryana, CRM- M-26229 (O&M) decided on 10.06.2022 that when the petitioner conceals the material fact from the Court, he cannot be held entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Court. It was observed: - “… The law is well settled that where a process is ‘ex debito Justitiae’, the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides. Apex Court in the case of Hari Narain vs. Badri Dass, AIR 1963 S.C.1558 approved of the said principle and the same was followed in the case of Welcome Hotel vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 575, where it was held that a party which has misled the Court is not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Court.” 20. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail because of their conduct. 21. The status report shows that many FIRs are pending against the petitioners, which means that they have criminal antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024: HHC: 6091 and held, after referring to various judgments, that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024: HHC: 6091 and held, after referring to various judgments, that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 22. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner can become a threat to society because of her criminal antecedents, she should not be released on bail. It was observed: “27….An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.” 23. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons were involved in the commission of similar offences, they should not be released on bail. It was observed: - “20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half years, apart from the fact that all the respondents are shown to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the chargesheet against the respondents, except accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, who are shown to have been involved in two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion, the High Court should not have taken a lenient view, more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA. 24. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 that liberty of a person has to be balanced with peace and harmony in society. Liberty cannot be elevated to such a high pedestal as would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. It was observed at page 384: “65. Liberty cannot be elevated to such a high pedestal as would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. It was observed at page 384: “65. We are absolutely conscious that the liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for the deprivation of the liberty of a person has an immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of emptiness. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of law, an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. Individual liberty is restricted by larger social interests, and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society, an individual is expected to live with dignity, having respect for the law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a society governed by the rule of law has to be regulated, and such regulations, which are the source of law, subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for the protection of human rights and the security of the collective. This is because, fundamentally, laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve their individual as well as social interests. That is why Edmond Burke, while discussing liberty, opined, “it is regulated freedom”. 66. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal that it would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude, but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude, but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society, the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing, J. Oerter stated: “Personal liberty is the right to act without interference within the limits of the law.” 67. Thus analysed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one, and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardised, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti-collective act. (See: Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172.) 25. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be held entitled to bail because of their criminal antecedents. 26. The present petitions show that the petitioners have 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. 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 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. 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.” 27. 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 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.” 28. Therefore, the present petitions should not have been filed before this Court and are also liable to be dismissed on this ground as well. 29. Hence, the present petitions fail, and the same are dismissed. 30. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.