2026:HHC:41372 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1773 of 2026 Reserved on: 21.09.2026. Decided on: 25.09.2026 Mishu Guglani …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Prashant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre- arrest bail in FIR No. 50 of 2026 dated 18.02.2026 registered at Police Station Baddi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 308(2), and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. It has been asserted that the FIR No. 50 of 2026 was registered based on a written complaint made by Dr Gagan Jain, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:41372 Director of Jain Hospital, Baddi, against one Abhinav Goyal, alleging extortion of ₹1.5 lac, assault, criminal trespass in his hospital, and criminal intimidation. The informant has not asserted anything against the petitioner. The police implicated the petitioner because co-accused Abhinav Goyal had transferred a sum of ₹3.99 lakhs into the petitioner’s bank account. Abhinav Goyal had taken ₹1.5 lakh from the informant as per the prosecution, whereas the amount of ₹3.99 lakhs was transferred by him to the petitioner's account. The petitioner had not committed any extortion, nor had he trespassed into the premises of the hospital to threaten him on 27.01.2026. The petitioner is a taxi operator by profession, and Abinav Goyal is his customer. He used to engage the petitioner’s services and had made payment of the outstanding bills to the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. He had filed a bail petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, but it was dismissed because the petitioner had not joined the investigation despite the service of notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and had absconded. The petitioner is a taxi operator and was not aware of the notice served upon him. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions 3 2026:HHC:41372 that the Court may impose. 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 informant, Dr Gagan Jain, received a phone call from Sh. Abhinav Goyal, who introduced himself as SHO of Chandigarh Police. Abhinav Goyal told the informant that an FIR was registered against him and he would be sent to jail. Abhinav Goyal also made a video call in a police uniform. He also showed his identity card. The informant believed the representation made by the co-accused Abhinav Goyal. Abhinav Goyal extorted ₹1,50,000/- from the complainant over a period of time. He and two other unidentified persons visited the hospital on 27.01.2026 on a false pretext of arresting the informant. They assaulted the informant, used criminal force and behaved violently. The informant was saved by the security staff employed in the hospital. He made the complaint to the police. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police seized the screenshots of the calls and the messages sent to the informant. The police arrested the co-accused, Abhinav Goel, who disclosed during the interrogation that he and his friend Mishu (the present petitioner) had impersonated a police official and an advocate and extorted money from the informant. The police seized 4 2026:HHC:41372 the mobile phones of the co-accused Abhinav Goyal and also the screenshot of the conversation between him and the informant. The mobile phones were sent to the FSL for the recovery of the data. The chats were found by the FSL. The transaction of ₹3,99,000/-was found between co-accused Abhinav Goyal and the petitioner. The police searched for the petitioner but could not trace him; hence, the bailable warrants were obtained from the Court. The petitioner appeared before the police on 16.09.2026. He was directed to join the investigation on 17.09.2026, but he failed to do so. An FIR No. 956 of 2017 has been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him to the commission of the crime. His name was not mentioned in the FIR, and he is being implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused, which is 5 2026:HHC:41372 inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Jjitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the extortion of money from the informant. This fact is evident from the financial transaction between the co-accused Abhinav Goyal and the petitioner. The petitioner did not join the investigation. He had absconded earlier, and the police had to obtain warrants to secure his presence. The investigation cannot continue without interrogating the petitioner. Therefore, 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 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. 6 2026:HHC:41372 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 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 7 2026:HHC:41372 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 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 8 2026:HHC:41372 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) 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. 9 2026:HHC:41372 13. The status report shows that the police arrested the co- accused Abhinav Goyal and checked the financial transactions. It was found that an amount of ₹4,36,465/- was transferred between 20.08.2025 and 09.02.2026 from the informant's account to the account of the co-accused, Abhinav Goyal, who had transferred ₹3,99,002/- between 06.01.2026 and 21.02.2026 to the petitioner’s account. The financial transaction between the petitioner and the co-accused prima facie shows his involvement in the commission of the crime. 14. The status report mentions that the petitioner had not joined the investigation. He was not found present at his home, and the police had to obtain the warrants of arrest to secure his presence. The petitioner was directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, to join the investigation. However, he failed to do so. He was also directed by this Court to join the investigation, and he appeared before the Investigating Officer on 16.09.2026. He was directed to appear on 17.09.2026. However, he failed to do so. Therefore, in these circumstances, the plea taken by the State has some force that the petitioner would not join the investigations and his custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the crime. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma 10 2026:HHC:41372 (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 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 in questioning 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.” 11 2026:HHC:41372 16. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigations. It was observed: “83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting useful information, and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences, would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 17. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail on this consideration as well. 18. No other point was urged. 19. In view of the above, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 20. 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 25th September, 2026 (Nikita)