Mohd Aarif Vs state of Hp

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 83 of 2025 dated 27.05.2025, registered at Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmaur (HP), for commission of offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 238 and 317(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNS).

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

2

¶12

2025:HHC:30673

¶13

It has been asserted that the petitioner has not committed any offence, and the FIR was lodged on false facts. The main accused had already deposited the IDV of the vehicle. The petitioner’s name was added after ten days of the registration of the FIR. The petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail, but the bail was not confirmed. Theft of the truck had taken place from the custody of the police. Two main persons in the present matter have deposited the cost of the truck. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, the petition.

¶14

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that SI Achhar Singh found on 18.05.2025, that the vehicle bearing registration No. HR 37E-5499, seized by the police in FIR No. 75 of 2025, was missing from the premises of the old Police Station. The police searched for the vehicle but could not find it. Some unknown person had stolen it during the night. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police checked the CCTV footage and found that the vehicle had crossed the Kala Amb barrier at 01.20 AM. The police also found that another vehicle bearing registration

¶15

3

¶16

2025:HHC:30673

¶17

No. HR51CN-1149, owned by Sahil, was moving ahead of the truck. The police interrogated Sahil, who disclosed that Parvez @ Bolar used to drive the vehicle and that he had handed over the truck to Gurpreet for selling it in Delhi. Police interrogated Gurpreet, who revealed that Aarif (the present petitioner) had stolen the truck. Gurpreet had purchased the truck for ₹8,25,000/-. The truck was cut into pieces, and the spare parts were sold to different people. The police arrested Sahil, who got recovered a body, tyres, rims, batteries and wires, which were seized by the police. Police seized the currency notes at the instance of Sahil and Gurpreet. Gurpreet also disclosed the involvement of Aarif. Aarif was directed to join the investigation, but he did not join the investigation despite the directions of the Court. The other accused had joined the investigation. Hence, the status report.

¶18

I have heard Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶19

Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he

¶20

4

¶21

2025:HHC:30673

¶22

was falsely implicated. The co-accused have been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶23

Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner failed to join the investigation despite the direction issued by this Court. The petitioner is to be interrogated, and his involvement in the commission of a similar offence is to be verified. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶24

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶25

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 the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

¶26

“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

¶27

5

¶28

2025:HHC:30673

¶29

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.”

¶30

9. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v.

¶31

State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held:

¶32

“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.”

¶33

10. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana,

¶34

(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:

¶35

6

¶36

2025:HHC:30673

¶37

“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.”

¶38

It was held in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab ,

¶39

(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 at page 501:

¶40

“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 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.

¶41

22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy,

¶42

7

¶43

2025:HHC:30673

¶44

(2013) 7 SCC 452: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 563] , wherein this Court expressed thus: (SCC p. 465, para 34)

¶45

“ 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)

¶46

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 which 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.

¶47

The status report shows that the petitioner has driven

¶48

the stolen truck from the premises of the Police Station. Therefore, prima facie , there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.

¶49

8

¶50

2025:HHC:30673

¶51

It was submitted that the statement made by the coaccused is inadmissible, and the police are not justified in seeking the petitioner’s arrest based on the statement made by the co-accused. This submission cannot be accepted. This Court held in Rajesh Kumar v. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 458 of 2025, decided on 25.3.2025, that the pre-arrest bail can be denied to a person named by the co-accused to enable the police to interrogate him. An SLP No. 55547 of 2025 titled Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. against this order was withdrawn on 21.4.2025. It was held by this Court in Jatinder Pal Singh vs. State of HP 2025:HHC:20446 that a person named by the co-accused is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. This order was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jatinder Pal Singh vs. State of HP Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9629/2025 decided on 10.07.2025.

¶52

The status report also mentions that the petitioner had not joined the investigation despite the direction given by this Court. A perusal of the copy of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan District, Sirmaur (HP), also shows that the petitioner had absconded after the commission of the crime. The conduct of the petitioner was held to be sufficient to disentitle him from the discretionary relief of

¶53

9

¶54

2025:HHC:30673

¶55

per-arrest bail. The fact that the petitioner has not joined the investigation despite the direction given by the Courts justifies the submission made on behalf of the State that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to elicit the circumstances related to the crime. 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: -

¶56

“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 disintering many 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”

¶57

10

¶58

2025:HHC:30673

¶59

15. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in

¶60

Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032,

¶61

wherein it was observed: -

¶62

“13. One of the signifcant factors in determining this i question would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more ef f ective to question a suspect. The cocoon of protection af f orded 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 ef f ective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.”

¶63

16. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of

¶64

pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigations. It was observed:

¶65

“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.”

¶66