2026:HHC:33184 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1088 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.08.2026. Ram Pratap Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : M/s B.S. Thakur and Heena Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the victim : Mr Rajeev Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Mr Yug Singhal, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 0021 of 2026, dated 07.05.2026, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(2) (m) and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS) 2023 at Women Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is working as a Managing Director of M/S Medicross Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. He belongs to a respectable family and has deep roots in the society. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:33184 He was falsely implicated in the present FIR. An agreement to sell was executed between the petitioner’s wife, Sunita Singla, Director of M/S Medicross Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., and one Sh. Pankaj Nandwana, Director of M/S Promvin Biotech Pvt. Ltd. The purchaser wanted the possession of the purchased property without the payment of the sale consideration, and when the petitioner's wife objected, the purchaser falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. The victim is working in the factory of Mr Pankaj Nandwana, who is instrumental in the registration of the present FIR. The police have filed a charge sheet and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Another F.I.R. No. 1370 of 2025 has been registered against the petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim was employed in M/S Medicross Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner used to harass her. She objected many times. The petitioner asked the victim to accompany him to his home to bring some papers. The petitioner 3 2026:HHC:33184 raped the victim in his home. He threatened the victim and repeatedly raped her between January 2025 and March 2025. She narrated the incident to her husband, who advised her to report the matter to the police. The victim filed a complaint before the police. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police seized various documents. The victim also made allegations against the petitioner's daughter, but her involvement was not found. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. Hence, the status report. 4. The victim/complainant also filed written objections asserting that the petitioner was Managing Director of the company where the victim was employed. He abused his official position and economic dominance to sexually exploit the victim. The present case involves abuse of authority, betrayal of trust and systematic exploitation of an employee. The victim was repeatedly threatened with dire consequences if the incident was disclosed to any person. The offence is grave. The complainant’s version is corroborated by her prompt medical examination, collection and preservation of biological exhibits, and seizure of forensic material. The petitioner would flee from justice and 4 2026:HHC:33184 intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. The report from SFSL is awaited, and the release of the petitioner would influence the investigation; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard M/s B.S. Thakur and Heena Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State and Mr Rajiv Jiwan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Yug Singhal, Advocate, for the victim. 6. Mr B.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is a delay of one year in reporting the matter to the police, for which no explanation is provided. The victim had made false allegations against the petitioner's daughter, which shows the extent to which the victim can go. The police have completed the investigation, and the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner has roots in society. He belongs to a respectable section of the society and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 5 2026:HHC:33184 Hence, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 7. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The petitioner is the employer of the victim, and she could not have dared to report the matter against the petitioner. The delay has been properly explained. The dispute between the petitioner's wife and Pankaj Nandwana is an independent transaction, which has nothing to do with the present offence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. Mr Rajiv Jiwan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Yug Singhal, learned counsel for the victim, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He was the employer of the victim. He can intimidate the witness if released on bail. The delay has been satisfactorily explained. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses, if released on bail. 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. 6 2026:HHC:33184 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.” 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 7 2026:HHC:33184 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 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.” 8 2026:HHC:33184 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 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 [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, 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 9 2026:HHC:33184 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 petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The status report states that the petitioner had raped the victim between January 2025 and March 2025; however, she reported the matter to the police on 07.05.2026. The victim asserted that her husband had gone away from the home and returned after 2 to 3 months, but no further explanation has been provided as to why the matter was not reported after the return of the victim's husband. 16. The status report also mentions that the victim had made allegations against the petitioner's daughter, which were 10 2026:HHC:33184 found to be incorrect. Therefore, prima facie, the victim can level false allegations against anyone and her credibility is suspect. 17. The status report also mentions that the victim was earlier working in M/S Medicross Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., but at present she is working in M/S Promvin Biotech Pvt. Ltd. There is a dispute between M/S Medicross Laboratories Pvt. Ltd and M/S Promvin Biotech Pvt. Ltd and this factor also cannot be ignored. 18. The police have completed the investigation, which means that the petitioner's custody is not required. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the victim’s conduct, the petitioner’s pre-trial detention is not justified. 19. It was submitted that another FIR has been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner has criminal antecedents; hence, he is not entitled to bail. This submission will not help the prosecution. A copy of the bail order passed by the Bombay High Court shows that the petitioner was a Managing Director of the company which had manufactured the drugs and supplied them to the companies where license had expired. The offence was committed by another person. 11 2026:HHC:33184 Considering the technical nature of the offence, it cannot be used to deny bail to the petitioner in the present case. 20. No other point was urged. 21. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the order dated 22.06.2026 is made absolute. 22. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the main case. ( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 07th August, 2026. (Ravinder)