2026:HHC:38286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1596 of 2026 Date of decision: 09.09.2026. Kumar Kapoor Soni ...Petitioner. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Mehta, Anubhav Chopra and Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge (oral): The present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), has been filed, seeking post arrest bail in a case registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’), registered vide RC No. RC0962026A0008 dated 03.07.2024, by the CBI, ACB, Shimla. 2. The case as set up by the petitioner is that the RC dated 03.07.2026 was registered at the instance of one Yashwant Singh, allegedly claiming himself to be a Supervisor of M/s Pramod Kumar, a partnership firm, belonging to one Sh. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Anshul Marwaha. The complaint is stated to have been filed on distorted facts and the petitioner had never demanded any money. The alleged trap of Rs. 53,000/- laid by the CBI was stated to be an eyewash and the petitioner had neither demanded nor accepted any bribe. The allegation vis-à-vis the recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,60,000/- from the residence of the petitioner was also stated to have been kept with the petitioner by one of his relatives, namely Vinay Kumar, who had handed over the same to him for safe upkeep, while he was visiting Manali. The petitioner has been falsely implicated because of a deep rooted conspiracy hatched by the complainant. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was neither the final authority nor was technically entitled to clear the bills as the same were to be submitted to the Chief Engineer, (R&D), Delhi. The petitioner had served the department for almost 16 years and had an unblemished record. The petitioner was innocent and he had nothing to do with the commission of the offence. 4. While controverting the allegations in the petition, the CBI has averred in the reply that it had received a written complaint on 02.07.2026 from one Yashwant Singh, son of Sh. Hari Ram, Supervisor of M/s Pramod Kumar and the same was -3- got verified through Sh. Tarun Rana, Sub Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Shimla. As per the complainant, the firm had already completed 24 projects in the year 2025 and was currently working on four projects in Manali itself. Out of the 24 projects completed in the year 2025, the firm had received payments for 22 projects but two bills, however, were pending with the accused/petitioner. In lieu of two pending bills, the petitioner/accused had demanded 2% commission amounting to Rs. 93,000/- as bribe. 5. Constrained by the illegal demand, the complainant, Yashwant Singh had submitted a handwritten complaint. In pursuance thereto, the respondent CBI had laid a trap and the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting an amount of Rs. 53,000/-. Subsequently, during the course of the search of his premises, an additional unaccounted amount of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 9,60,000/- had also been recovered and seized from the residence of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner came to be arrested on 04.07.2026, after adhering to all the codal formalities and since then he is in custody. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully. 8. The learned counsel for the CBI in all fairness -4- submitted that the charge-sheet already stands filed on 06.09.2026. It is thus apparent that the investigations in the case are over. The respondent-CBI had initially taken a stand that since the investigation was at a crucial stage, enlarging the petitioner on bail may hamper the investigation. After the filing of the charge-sheet, the said apprehension of the respondent- CBI, however, stands duly answered. 9. Admittedly, the accused came to be arrested by laying a trap. The respective contentions of the parties have to be tested by the Court during the course of trial but one thing has clearly emerged on record that the charge-sheet already stands filed. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is thus no more necessary. It is thus further apparent that the conclusion of trial is likely to take substantial time, the incarceration of the petitioner thus is not going to advance the case of the respondent in any manner. The petitioner cannot be allowed to remain incarcerated for an indefinite period. The petitioner otherwise can be put to terms to ensure that he does not influence the witnesses conversant with the facts of the case. 10. Even otherwise, the presumption of innocence is still available to the petitioner. It is by now fairly well settled that the Courts loathe pre-trial punishment, as the cardinal -5- principle undoubtedly is that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. 11. Without adverting to the merits of the case any further, suffice it to say that the incarceration of the petitioner is indeed not required any further. The petitioner, otherwise is a government official, being an Assistant Garrison Engineer and as such, the chances of his absconding are very unlikely and even otherwise, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent if the accused-petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. 12. Considering the entire gamut of circumstances discussed hereinabove, the petition is thus allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The bail shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall regularly attend the trial. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner nor hamper the investigation, if any. (iii) The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted -6- with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without the express permission of the Court and surrender his passport before the learned trial Court, in case he has one. 13. The observations made hereinabove shall not prejudice the party on the merits of the case, whatsoever. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 9th September, 2026. (kck)