2026:HHC:9410 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 439 of 2026 Reserved on: 23.03.2026 Date of Decision: 31.3.2026. Rajeev Kumar ...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 Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 20 of 2026, dated 11.02.2026, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner has purchased a car from the complainant and issued a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:9410 cheque of ₹13,20,000/-. The petitioner paid the entire consideration, but the cheque was not returned to the petitioner by the informant. A false F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner had not committed any offence. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Eight cases were registered against the petitioner, out of which F.I.R. No. 319 of 2008, F.I.R. No. 273 of 2008, F.I.R. No. 26 of 2011, F.I.R. No. 09/2008, F.I.R. No.174 of 2022 and F.I.R. No. 127 of 2022 dated 05.07.2008 are pending. The petitioner was convicted in F.I.R. No. 196 of 2008 dated 05.07.2008 and acquitted in F.I.R. No. 65 of 2009 dated 18.02.2009; hence, the present petition. 3. The record shows that the petitioner had filed a bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. A report was submitted that the petitioner had not joined the investigation, and the learned counsel representing the petitioner before the learned Trial Court did not press the petition before the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner approached this Court thereafter. 4. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal C versus State of Kerala and Anr. Special Leave to 3 2026:HHC:9410 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 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 4 2026:HHC:9410 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.” 5. It was held in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108, that asking the party to approach the Court of Sessions would help the High Court in getting the perspective of the Sessions Court. 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 5 2026:HHC:9410 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.” 6. The petitioner had withdrawn the petition before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., and had not taken his bail petition to a logical conclusion. Therefore, the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to approach the learned Trial Court at the first instance so as to enable the High Courts to assess the judicial perspective was not fulfilled. The purpose of the direction cannot be fulfilled simply by filing the petition and thereafter withdrawing it. The purpose is to invite the findings on merit and approach the High Court only when there is a denial of bail. 7. In view of the above, the present petition cannot be entertained; however, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and invite the findings on merit. 6 2026:HHC:9410 8. The petition stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. 9. 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 31st March,2026 (ravinder)