2026:HHC:14205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 619 of 2026 Reserved on: 24.04.2026 Date of Decision: 30.04.2026. Gurwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General with ASI Inder Singh, I.O. P.S. Fatehpur. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 21 of 2026 dated 13.02.2026, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) and 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:14205 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, Ajay Ali and the informant Rafi Mahomad were unloading stones from a tractor trolley. The petitioner objected to illegal mining, took out a pistol, fired in the air, slapped the informant and threatened him in Punjabi. The police recovered one fired cartridge from the spot. The petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated due to local rivalry. The petitioner had objected to the informant’s illegal mining. He had even prepared a video recording, which had enraged the informant. The petitioner has joined the investigation pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-I, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. He will cooperate with the investigation and abide by the terms and conditions that the Courts may impose. The petitioner has deep roots in the society and there is no likelihood of his absconding. Hence, the present petition 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Rafi Mohamad was unloading a trolley of stones at Barar Stone Crusher, Chakmipur, on 11.02.2026. The petitioner abused him and gave him beatings. The petitioner took out a pistol and shot into the air. The police registered F.I.R and investigated the matter. The police recovered 3 2026:HHC:14205 an empty cartridge on the spot. The petitioner produced the video recording of the incident, which is being verified. F.I.R No. 237 of 2025, dated 22.11.2025, was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce the weapon despite repeated interrogation. Hence, the status report 4. I have heard Mr Mohit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Mohit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The petitioner’s version that he made video recording of the incident, and a false case was made against him, cannot be ruled out. The petitioner cannot be compelled to produce the weapon of offence as he has a right to silence. He relied upon the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Bijender vs State of Haryana, SLP (Crl.) No. (s) 1079 of 2024, dated 06.03.2024 and Hemant Kumar vs. State of Haryana, SLP (Crl.) No. (s) 232 of 2024, dated 06.03.2024, in support of his submission. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the investigation is at the 4 2026:HHC:14205 initial stage. The police are yet to recover the weapon of offence. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he is likely to indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given a 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. 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 5 2026:HHC:14205 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 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 6 2026:HHC:14205 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, 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[CBIv.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, 7 2026:HHC:14205 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 13. The status report mentions that when the victim was unloading a trolley of stones at Brar Stone Crusher, the petitioner reached the spot. The petitioner slapped and threatened the informant with a pistol. The petitioner also fired a shot in the air. This version is corroborated by the recovery of an empty cartridge from the spot and video recording produced by the petitioner, in which the victim is seen unloading the 8 2026:HHC:14205 tractor trolley. Thus, the presence of the petitioner on the spot with the victim is duly established. At this stage, the victim’s version that the petitioner had intimidated him by showing him a pistol and by firing it in the air has to be prima facie accepted as correct. 14. The status report also shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, and an F.I.R. No. 237 of 2025, dated 22.11.2025, was registered against him. This Court dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents while granting bail in Champa vs. State of H.P.: 2025:HHC:28899 and held that the criminal antecedents would disentitle an accused from the concession of bail, especially when an FIR was registered against him for the commission of a similar offence. This judgment was unsuccessfully assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Criminal) 19120 of 2025 titled Champa Devi vs State of H.P., decided on 27.11.2025. Therefore, the relevance of criminal antecedents cannot be ignored. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner would support the submission made on behalf of the State that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar crime if released on bail. 9 2026:HHC:14205 15. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. This question will not arise in the present case because the criminal antecedents of the petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of pre-arrest bail, and the cited judgments will not help him. 16. No other point urged. 17. In view of the above, the present fails, and it is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. 18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the main case. Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th April, 2026. (ravinder)