2026:HHC:10206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) Nos. 2622, 2623, 2624, 2625 & 2626 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.03.2026 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026. _____________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 2622 of 2025 Ravi Kaushal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent ______________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 2623 of 2025 Ravi Kaushal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent ______________________________________ 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 2624 of 2025 Kamal Kaushal …. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …. Respondent ______________________________________ 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 2625 of 2025 Mahesh Kaushal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent ______________________________________ 5. Cr.MP(M) No. 2626 of 2025 Ravinder Raj ...Petitioner 2 2026:HHC:10206 Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner(s) : Ms Kanta Thakur, Advocate, in all the petitions. For the Respondents/State: Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State, in all the petitions. For the Informant/Victim: Mr K.S. Gill, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail, in FIR No. 45 of 2025 dated 21.10.2025 registered at Police Station Ramshahar, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 79, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), and 352, of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). Since all the petitions have arisen out of the same FIR; therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal. 2. It has been asserted that an altercation had taken place between the petitioner Kamal Kaushal and Shopkeeper Amit 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 3 2026:HHC:10206 Kumar over the money being charged by him (Amit Kumar). Mahesh Kaushal and Ravi Kaushal (the petitioner’s) reached the spot to rescue Kamal Kaushal and Ravinder Raj. Amit Kumar and his family members gave beatings to them. The petitioners Kamal Kaushal and Ravinder Raj filed an online complaint on 22.10.2025, and FIR No. 46 of 2025 dated 23.10.2025, was registered against the shopkeeper (Amit Kumar). The shopkeeper got a false FIR No. 45 of 2025 dated 21.10.2025, registered against the petitioners. The petitioners are innocent, and they have been falsely implicated. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 3. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information from the informant (the name being withheld to protect her identity) that some persons were quarrelling with her. The informant reached the Police Station with her husband and son. They were sent for medical examinations. The informant filed a complaint asserting that they were closing the shop on 20.10.2025 at about 10:20 PM when Kallu came to the shop and misbehaved with the 4 2026:HHC:10206 informant’s husband. He talked obscenely to the informant. She objected. Kallu got into a quarrel with the informant’s husband and tore the informant’s clothes. Meet (Kallu’s brother) and other persons also came to the spot and gave beatings to the informant party. The incident was video recorded by the informant’s daughter. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The informant’s minor daughters made an allegation of molesting them during the investigation. Hence, the status report. 4. The informant also filed a reply/objection reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the FIR was lodged with the intervention of higher police officials. The informant’s minor daughters were molested. The video recording of the incident was also handed over to the police. The police tried to settle the matter between the informant party and the petitioners instead of investigating it. The petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 5. I have heard Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate 5 2026:HHC:10206 General for the respondent/State, and Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the informant/victim. 6. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The petitioners had also lodged an FIR No. 46 of 2025 against the informant party, and the present FIR No. 45 of 2025 was filed as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners. No allegation of molesting the minor children was made in the FIR, and the allegations are an afterthought. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. Hence, she prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 7. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. 8. Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the informant/victim, submitted that the petitioners are involved in the commission of 6 2026:HHC:10206 a heinous offence; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. 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.” 7 2026:HHC:10206 11. 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.” 12. 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 8 2026:HHC:10206 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.” 13. 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 at 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 [CBI v. 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, 9 2026:HHC:10206 reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of 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. 14. The present petitions are to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The FIR does not mention any allegation of molesting the informant’s minor daughters. These allegations were made during the investigation. The petitioners specifically asserted that they had lodged an FIR against the informant party. Therefore, two versions of the same incident are appearing on the record. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State specifically stated that the charge sheet has been filed before the 10 2026:HHC:10206 Court, which means that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. The informant/victim has not mentioned that the petitioners had committed any crime when they were granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the apprehension that the petitioners would indulge in the commission of the crime in case of their release on bail cannot be accepted. 16. Keeping in view the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other, the improvement made by the informant regarding the molestation of her minor girls and the filing of the charge sheet before the Court, the present petitions are allowed, the order dated 03.11.2025 is made absolute, and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following conditions: - (I) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (II) The petitioners shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. 11 2026:HHC:10206 (III) The petitioners will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (IV) The petitioners will surrender their passports, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioners will furnish their mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file petitions for cancellation of the bail. 18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 6th April, 2026 (Nikita)