2026:HHC:39398 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1791 of 2026 Reserved on: 11.9.2026 Decided on: 16.9.2026 Mohanraj …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 12of 2026, dated 22.06.2026, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Section 66-D of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39398 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner received a phone call from the Cyber Crime Police Station, Mandi, informing him about the registration of the FIR and stating that his presence was required at the police station. The petitioner apprehends his arrest. He would abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. 3. The State has filed a copy of the FIR, mentioning that the informant, Gopal Dass, received a phone call on his mobile number stating that his SIM card was being used for illegal activities. He received other calls, and the callers identified themselves as officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The informant was told that many bank accounts had been registered in his name and that ₹20.00 crores had been illegally transferred through those accounts. He was directed to deposit the money into a 'National Security Supervision Account'. He was also told that he was under 'digital arrest' and could not disconnect the call. The petitioner deposited an amount of ₹1,14,50,000/- into the designated accounts. He was also provided a purported police clearance certificate; however, the money was never returned. 3 2026:HHC:39398 Consequently, the police registered the FIR, and the investigation is being conducted. 4. I have heard Mr Sunil Kumar Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr Sunil Kumar Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions as the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court directly without first approaching the Court of Session, which is impermissible. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the records carefully. 4 2026:HHC:39398 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner has not approached the Court of Session and has directly approached this Court. 9. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal C versus State of Kerala and Anr. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6588 of 2025, decided on 08.09.2025, that the party should not be encouraged to approach the High Court directly without approaching the Court of Sessions. It was observed: - “We find that in this case, the petitioners had approached the High Court directly for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for short, ‘BNSS’), without first approaching the Sessions Court for the said relief. We are of the opinion that though the concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the Sessions Court and the High Court to entertain a prayer for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 CrPC), the hierarchy of Courts demands that no person seeking such remedy should be encouraged or allowed to directly approach the High Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 CrPC) by bypassing the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Court. 7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrPC in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court, which would have direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have immediate access to the Case Diary, thereby facilitating a better appreciation of the facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first 5 2026:HHC:39398 approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications, thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking a remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a strong probability that a significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only, thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail, and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre- arrest bail directly in special/extraordinary circumstances.” 10. It was held in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108, that asking the party to approach the Court of Sessions would help the High Court in getting the perspective of the Sessions Court. It was observed: “6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste with which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that the High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly intervening itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-complainant as a party.” 6 2026:HHC:39398 11. Therefore, it is impermissible to approach the High Court without approaching the Court of Session, and the present petition is not maintainable on this short ground alone. 12. Even otherwise, the allegations in the FIR show the "digital arrest" and the extortion of substantial amounts of money based on digital arrest. Such cyber offences are increasing and are targeting innocent persons. Therefore, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in such an offence considering the gravity of the offence. 13. In view of the above discussion, the present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 14. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th September, 2026 (Chander)