2026:HHC:36663 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1594 of 2026 Reserved on: 24.08.2026 Date of Decision: 27. 08.2026 Arun Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr Anurag Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 24 of 2026, dated 22.05.2026, registered at Police Station Bhabanagar, District Kinnaur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 85 and 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:36663 2. It has been asserted that as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner's wife has committed suicide. The matter was reported to the police by the informant. The allegations in the FIR do not satisfy the ingredients of the commission of offences mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen. He has deep roots in the society, and there is no chance of the petitioner absconding or not attending the trial. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant is the father of the petitioner's wife (since deceased). The marriage of the petitioner and the deceased was solemnised in the year 2017. The deceased used to complain to her parents that she was being harassed by the petitioner and his family members, who used to demand dowry from her. She committed suicide by jumping into Kercham Dam on 21.05.2026. ₹190, one Dhaatu, one shoe and a bus ticket were recovered from the spot. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police recovered the articles lying on the spot. Subsequently, the statements of the victim's relatives were 3 2026:HHC:36663 recorded. It was found that the victim was married to the petitioner in the year 2017. She was being harassed for not giving birth to a child, and she left her matrimonial home. Subsequently, the relatives of the parties counselled them, and the victim went to her matrimonial home. She gave birth to two children: Ayansh aged 5 years and Reyansh aged 3 years. The petitioner's father married the victim to the petitioner's younger brother in the year 2025 without her consent, and an affidavit to this effect was executed. A common marriage was entered into between the victim, the petitioner and his brother. The victim used to complain about the harassment after the common marriage. The petitioner and his family members did not send her to her parental home. The petitioner and his family members asked the deceased to borrow money from her parents whenever she demanded money from them. The deceased called her sister- in-law and said that she was feeling homesick. She appeared to be frightened. The victim's sister-in-law asked her to visit her parental home in case she was feeling homesick. However, the victim said that she could not visit her parental home because of the elections, but would visit the home after the elections. The deceased left the home and sent a message to her father that she 4 2026:HHC:36663 was committing suicide. Her dead body was recovered on 27.06.2026. As per the report of DNA analysis, the dead body was identified as that of the deceased victim. The voice message was also recovered from the victim's mobile phone. As per the investigation conducted by the police, the victim had committed suicide because of the harassment and forcing her to enter into a common marriage. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr N. K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Anurag Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr N. K. Thakur, Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim had committed suicide after travelling in the bus, and it cannot be said that any act of the petitioner was responsible for her suicide. The police have collected insufficient material to connect the petitioner to the crime. The allegations in the FIR, even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. The 5 2026:HHC:36663 petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the police have collected sufficient material to prima facie connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The allegations against the petitioner are heinous and show that the petitioner and his family members had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to take her life. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail, and the investigation would also be adversely affected by granting the pre-arrest bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 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 6 2026:HHC:36663 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: “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 7 2026:HHC:36663 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 designed 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, 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 8 2026:HHC:36663 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 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) 9 2026:HHC:36663 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 victim's parents and relatives had made specific statements against the petitioner and his family members that they were harassing the victim for bringing insufficient dowry. They did not provide her with any money for meeting her personal expenses and asked her to borrow the money from her parents. The petitioner's father solemnised a common marriage of the deceased with the petitioner's younger brother, and the deceased was not happy with it. She had made complaints regarding this fact to her parents. All these circumstances, prima facie, show that the petitioner and his family members had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. 10 2026:HHC:36663 14. It was submitted that the deceased had travelled in the bus before committing the suicide, and she had not mentioned any reason for the suicide in the voice note sent to her father. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner’s acts had compelled her to commit suicide. This submission will not help the petitioner. The contents of the status report, prima facie, show that the petitioner and his family members had created the circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner had not jumped into the river near her home, but travelled for some distance before doing so, will not take away the impact of the circumstances created by the petitioner and his family members. The absence of the reasons for suicide in the voice note will also not be material when the other evidence connects the petitioner to the commission of the crime. 15. The investigation is at an initial stage; the police are yet to collect the material, and releasing the petitioner on bail would adversely affect the progress of the investigation. 11 2026:HHC:36663 16. A precious life has been lost due to the circumstances created in her matrimonial home. The offences of suicide by the married woman are increasing day by day, and such offences should not be viewed lightly. Hence, considering the nature of the offence, the stage of the investigation and the material collected by the prosecution, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on pre-arrest bail. 17. No other point was urged. 18. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 19. The observation made hereinbefore 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 27th August, 2026 (Ravinder)