IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1604 of 2026 Reserved on: 27.08.2026 Date of Decision: 01.09.2026 Balviner Singh @ Sunny …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Dr Rajesh Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R No. 218 of 2026, dated 16.07.2026, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is self employed law abiding and respectable citizen with no criminal antecedents. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR No.218 of 2026. The petitioner is a painter by profession, and he stayed at the informant's house in the year 2024. He visited the village in October 2025, in connection with his work. The petitioner also visited the informant's house during this period. The informant filed a false FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner would cooperate with the investigation. 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 petitioner was residing in the informant’s house for 8-9 months. The petitioner committed the theft of two golden rings, one silver set, silver anklets, silver Kada and two gold rings worth ₹1,000/- and cash worth ₹40,000/-. The petition was missing afterwards. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police made enquiries from the petitioner, but the petitioner did not cooperate. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, and the recovery of the stolen property is to be effected. Hence, the status report. 3 4. I have heard Dr Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent state. 5. Dr Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He has not committed any theft and a false case was registered against him. The petitioner appeared before the police pursuant to the order passed by this Court, and he would cooperate with the investigation. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the investigation is at an initial stage. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary. The stolen property is yet to be recovered. The release of the petitioner on bail would adversely affect the progress of the investigation. 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. 4 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: “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 5 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, 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 6 of the view that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. 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, 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 7 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. As per the status report, the petitioner was residing in the informant's house. He had stolen jewellery and the cash from the informant's house, and thereafter he was found missing. These allegations are to be accepted as correct at this stage, and they show the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the crime. 14. The petitioner asserted that he is a painter by profession and had resided in the informant's house in connection with his work, which is not correct as per the status report. The status report specifically mentions that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation. The police are yet to recover the stolen property, which is not possible without custodial interrogation. This plea has force. 8 The petitioner had obtained pre-arrest bail from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation. Again, he obtained pre-arrest bail from this Court and did not cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the custodial interrogation is the only method by which the investigation can proceed further. 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 manner and that those entrusted with the task of 9 disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offender”. 15. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032, wherein it was observed: - “13. One of the significant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more effective to question a suspect. The cocoon of protection afforded by a bail order insulates the suspect, and he could thwart interrogation, reducing it to futile rituals. But it must also be kept in mind that while interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out. 16. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 17. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) 01st September, 2026. Judge. (Ravinder)