2025:HHC:7284 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 558 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 Battan 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. Pranav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that the police have registered an FIR No. 213 of 2024, dated 24.8.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur, H.P. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He is a permanent resident of Village Bharain, Post OfÏce Ropa, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. He is the sole bread earner of the family. He would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. He would abide by all 2 2025:HHC:7284 the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim, Karam Chand, was going towards his home on 11.5.2024 after getting the Tipper of the stone unloaded. He was called by the petitioner. He stopped, and the petitioner attacked him with Kilwari. The victim sustained injuries. He became unconscious and was taken to the hospital. The matter was reported to the police, and an FIR was registered. There was a dispute between the petitioner and the victim regarding the construction being carried out by the victim’s son. The report of the Medical OfÏcer shows that the victim had sustained grievous injuries. The victim was defaced hence Section 326A of the IPC was added. The petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, and he did not join the investigation despite the direction of the Court. The recovery of the weapon is yet to be effected. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Pranav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Pranav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner joined the investigation after the issuance of the 3 2025:HHC:7284 directions by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. He was not called thereafter by the police. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner has not joined the investigation despite direction. The recovery of the weapon of offence is to be effected for which purpose the custodial interrogation is required. The petitioner has caused grievous injuries to the victim, and the victim was defaced because of the injuries. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. 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 several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised 4 2025:HHC:7284 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 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.” 8. 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.” 9. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should 5 2025:HHC:7284 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.” 10. A perusal of the status report shows that the victim had duly identified the petitioner. The petitioner was carrying an iron kilwari with which he had inflicted injuries upon the victim. Hence, there is sufÏcient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. 11. The status report shows that the victim had sustained injuries on the mandible. Open reduction and internal fixation were carried out. He also remained admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh. The weapon of offence and the part of the body where the injuries were caused show prima facie commission of an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. 6 2025:HHC:7284 12. It has been asserted that the petitioner did not join the investigation. This fact was not disputed, and it was asserted that the petitioner was not called by the Investigating OfÏcer. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, had also dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that he was not cooperating with the investigation despite the orders of the Court. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he wants to stall the investigation by filing the pre-arrest bail petition and enjoying interim protection granted by this Court. This is not permissible. 13. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries and the weapon used, the plea of the prosecution that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required has to be accepted as correct. 14. 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-orientated 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 7 2025:HHC:7284 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 OfÏcers 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 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 investigation. 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 8 2025:HHC:7284 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 the nature of the offence and the conduct of the petitioner, he cannot be released on pre-arrest bail. Consequently, 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 20th March, 2025 (Chander)