2026:HHC:16771 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 724 of 2026 Reserved on: 08.05.2026 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026. Meharban …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Vinod Chauhan, 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. 49 of 2026, dated 13.03.2026, registered at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmaur, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 32 of the Arms Act. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:16771 one black pistol bearing the mark ‘P. Beretta Cal 7.65” along with two magazines: one empty and the other containing eight live cartridges marked “KF 7.65” were recovered from a locker inside an almirah from the room of the bail petitioner’s house. These allegations are false. Five FIRs were registered against the petitioner, which are pending before the Court. The petitioner would cooperate with the investigating agency and would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 13.03.2026. They received secret information at Rajban at 7:30 PM that the petitioner Meharban was selling/purchasing illicit firearms. He had uploaded the video on his Instagram handle showing a pistol to his friend. The police reduced the information into writing and searched the house in the presence of Kamrudeen, Suleman and Praveena. The police recovered one black pistol, one empty magazine and one magazine filled with eight live cartridges. The police seized the pistol and the cartridges. The petitioner absconded. Five FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is to be interrogated to know about the source and 3 2026:HHC:16771 destination of the pistol. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The petitioner would join the investigation and abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of one pistol, eight live cartridges and one empty magazine. The petitioner has not produced any license for possessing the weapons and the cartridges. He is to be interrogated to determine from where he had purchased the pistol to curb the sale of illegal weapons. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4 2026:HHC:16771 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 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: 5 2026:HHC:16771 “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 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, 6 2026:HHC:16771 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, 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 7 2026:HHC:16771 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 specifically mentions that the police had searched the petitioner’s house and recovered one black pistol, one empty magazine and one magazine containing eight live cartridges. The petitioner had uploaded a video on his Instagram handle, in which he was shown displaying the pistol to his friends. These allegations prima facie connect the petitioner to possession of the firearms. 8 2026:HHC:16771 14. The petitioner has not produced any license for the possession of a firearm. There is a force in the submission of Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, that the petitioner is to be interrogated to find out the source of the pistols. The illegal firearms are used for the commission of various crimes, and it is necessary to trace the source and seize the illegal firearms to take them out of circulation. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Trial Court, but he failed to join the investigation, which shows that the investigation cannot proceed further without the petitioner’s custodial interrogation. 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 9 2026:HHC:16771 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 offenders.” 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. 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 10 2026:HHC:16771 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. The status report shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. Five FIRs have been 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. 18. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 11 2026:HHC:16771 19. The observation made herein before 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 14th May, 2026 (Nikita)