2026:HHC:10816 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 482 of 2026 Reserved on: 31.3.2026 Date of Decision: 08.4.2026. Manoj Kumar @ Manu Tomar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, assisted by ASI Vijay Kumar, PS Bhuntar and HC Suresh, No. 442 T/C Cyber Cell, Kullu, HP. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 37 of 2026 dated 28.2.2026 registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under section 126(2), 308(3), 62 and 3 (5)/111(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:10816 2. It has been asserted that the FIR was registered against an unknown person, and the petitioner was arrayed subsequently without any cogent material. The petitioner is a social worker, and he is running an NGO in Delhi. He enjoys a good reputation in society. The petitioner joined the investigation on 20.03.2026 and 21.03.2026, at Police Station, Palam, Delhi and cooperated with the Investigating Agency. The vehicle and the SIM stated to be involved in the commission of the offence do not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner was undergoing medical treatment in Delhi on 27.02.2026, and this fact is duly supported by the medical record and the CCTV footage. The petitioner has already filed complaints against the police before the Hon’ble Governor of Himachal Pradesh and the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition for transit bail, which was allowed on 22.03.2026. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi, and he has deep roots in the society. There is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from justice. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family, and his family would suffer from his incarceration. His custodial interrogation is not required, and his 3 2026:HHC:10816 arrest would serve no fruitful purpose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, Ashwani Kumar, made a complaint to the police stating that he was going to his home in his vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-66B-9099 with Krishan Dev. A Scorpio bearing the words ‘Government of India’ overtook and stopped in front of the informant’s vehicle. Three people came out of the Scorpio and tried to drag the informant out of his vehicle. The informant got frightened by the incident and sped away from the spot. Informant’s Manager Pradeep called him at about 8 PM and told him that three persons came to the informant’s crusher, who identified themselves as officers of the Enforcement Department and told him that the informant should bring ₹ 20 to 25 lakhs within 24 hours, otherwise the crusher would be sealed, and the informant would have to suffer serious consequences. This incident was witnessed by Pawan and Krishan Dev. The informant received a call from the mobile number xxxxx337 on 30.12.2025. The caller identified himself as an officer of the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police 4 2026:HHC:10816 checked the CCTV footage and found the registration number of the vehicle to be DL-11-CB9528; however, this number was fake and not found to be registered in the name of any person. The police checked the call detail record of Mobile No. xxx337 and found that a call was made to the informant’s mobile number from this mobile. This mobile number was issued to Ravinder Kumar. The IMEI number was searched, which revealed that this mobile number was also used by the petitioner in his mobile phone. The tower location of the mobile was found around the place of the incident. The investigation is continuing. The petitioner had not co-operated with the investigation and absconded after obtaining transit bail. Ravinder Kumar made a statement before the learned Magistrate that he had handed over the SIM to the petitioner. The petitioner had threatened Ravinder Kumar. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5 2026:HHC:10816 5. Mr Rajesh Kumar, Ld. counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He was present at Delhi on the date of the incident and was getting himself treated. This fact can be verified from the CCTV footage and the medical record. The petitioner has been falsely implicated. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, and the petitioner would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had threatened the informant by impersonating himself as an officer of the Enforcement Directorate. The investigation is at the initial stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to recover the mobile phone and determine the involvement of other persons. The petitioner intimidated the informant and the main witness by calling them from different numbers. He would intimidate them if released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6 2026:HHC:10816 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 arrest is a part of the investigation procedure. The power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be sparingly exercised. 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 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: 7 2026:HHC:10816 “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.” 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, 8 2026:HHC:10816 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 that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case, and the presumption of innocence cannot be a reason to grant bail. It was observed on 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 implicated 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[CBIv.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 9 2026:HHC:10816 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) 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 that 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 has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The status report mentions that the informant and Krishan Dev had received threatening calls on 30.12.2025 from the mobile number xxx337. These mobile numbers were traced to Ravinder Kumar. He made a statement before the police and the learned Magistrate that he had taken these mobile numbers at the petitioner’s instance. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is connected to the mobile number that was used for 10 2026:HHC:10816 threatening the informant, and this would justify his further interrogation. 14. The status report also mentions that the petitioner was released on transit bail and was directed to join the investigation. However, the petitioner failed to join the investigation and absconded. Therefore, the plea taken by the police that the petitioner will not co-operate with the investigation without his custodial interrogation 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 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 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 11 2026:HHC:10816 manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offender”. 15. The status report mentions that the vehicle bearing the words ‘Government of India’ was used for committing the crime. Some persons had pretended to be the officers of the Enforcement Directorate and demanded ₹ 20 to 25 lakhs from the informant. These allegations show that the authority of the Union of India was undermined by the accused, and it is necessary to carry out a complete investigation into the matter. 16. The investigation is at the initial stage. The status report mentions that threatening calls were made to Ravinder Kumar, the main witness. Therefore, the apprehension that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail has substance, and the petitioner cannot be released on bail to ensure the safety of the witnesses. 17. It was submitted that the petitioner was undergoing treatment at Delhi on the date of the incident. This is a matter of investigation. Prima facie, the use of the petitioner’s mobile for intimidation shows his involvement, and even if he was not present on the date of the incident, that would not justify the pre-arrest bail. 12 2026:HHC:10816 18. No other point was urged. 19. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 8th April, 2026 (Chander)