Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

2025:HHC:27448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1825 of 2025 Reserved on: 5.8.2025 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025.

1.	Sandeep Chaudhary ...Petitioner Versus
	State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
	Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1855 of 2025 Reserved on: 7.8.2025 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025.
2.	Gurnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus
	State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
	Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1856 of 2025 Reserved on: 7.8.2025 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025.
3.	Rajinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus
	State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

2

2025:HHC:27448

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Awasthi, Advocate, in Cr.MP(M) No. 1825 of 2025 and Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate, in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1855 and 1856 of 2025. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 91 of 2025, dated 14.7.2025, registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2) 303(2) and 151 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), Act, 1957 (Mines Act) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, two excavators and four Tippers started illicit mining on 12.7.2025 at about 11.30 PM, near the informant’s factory. The informant went to the spot and requested the owners of the excavators and the Tippers not to carry out the mining near his factory. A Bolero carrying 8-10 people reached the spot. They

¶13

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

¶14

3

¶15

2025:HHC:27448

¶16

abused and threatened the informant. 2-3 persons hit the informant and other persons with sticks. One person fired a shot from the revolver towards the informant, but the informant saved himself. The police registered the FIR. The police are seeking to arrest the petitioners. The petitioners are innocent and have nothing to do with the crime. They belong to respectable families and have deep roots in the society, and there is no likelihood of their absconding. They would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petitions.

¶17

The petitions are opposed by filing status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police, stating that he was running a factory on the river bank. Illicit mining was being carried out in the river adjacent to the factory, which led to the flooding of the factory. The informant requested not to carry out the mining near his factory, as it was causing damage to the factory. Two excavators and four Tippers started illicit mining on 12.7.2025, at 11.30 PM. The informant went to the spot and requested not to carry out the mining. A Bolero vehicle carrying 8-10 people armed with weapons arrived on the spot. The occupants threatened the informant. 2-3 persons started beating the informant and other persons with a stick. Two people

¶18

4

¶19

2025:HHC:27448

¶20

got injured. One person shot at the informant. The police registered the FIR. Jagpal, the informant and Naresh sustained simple injuries in the incident. The police arrested Jaswant alias Jassa. Satish Kumar and Krishan Kumar were also arrested as per the identification made by the informant. Mahesh Kumar produced the Bolero used during the commission of the crime. The petitioner, Sandeep Chaudhary, joined the investigation, and he produced a tipper bearing registration No. HP-12P-7243. The recovery of the sticks, iron pipe and revolver is yet to be effected. One accused, Gulshan, is yet to be arrested. The petitioner will influence the investigation in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.

¶21

I have heard Mr. Rajat Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1825 of 2025, Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1855 and 1856 of 2025, and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

¶22

Mr. Rajat Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. His name was not mentioned in the FIR, and there is

¶23

5

¶24

2025:HHC:27448

¶25

insufficient material to connect him with the commission of the crime. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶26

Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1855 and 1856 of 2025, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and were falsely implicated. Their names were not mentioned in the FIR. The police have filed a stereo type reply asserting that the weapons of offence are yet to be recovered. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶27

Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the investigation is continuing. One of the co-accused is yet to be arrested. The weapons of offence are yet to be recovered. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

¶28

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

¶29

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-

¶30

6

¶31

2025:HHC:27448

¶32

arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

¶33

“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 prearrest 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 in 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.”

¶34

This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v.

¶35

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

¶36

“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

¶37

7

¶38

2025:HHC:27448

¶39

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.”

¶40

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

¶41

(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:

¶42

“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.”

¶43

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

¶44

(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

¶45

8

¶46

2025:HHC:27448

¶47

presumption of innocence cannot be a reason to grant bail. It was observed at page 501:

¶48

“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 petitioneraccused for the grant of anticipatory bail, and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

¶49

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)

¶50

“ 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)

¶51

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

¶52

9

¶53

2025:HHC:27448

¶54

to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.

¶55

The present petitions are to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶56

The status report shows that the petitioner Sandeep Chaudhary, had produced one of the tippers, which was used for illicit mining and petitioners Gurnam Singh and Rajinder Kumar had identified the place of incident. This shows a prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the crime. The status report also shows that the informant objected to the illicit mining being carried out in the vicinity of his factory. The persons carrying out the mining activities came to the spot in a Bolero armed with weapons, and one of the persons shot at the informant; however, the informant was saved. The manner of the incident shows that the assailants have no respect for the rule of law. They tried to shoot the informant who had objected to the illicit mining in the vicinity of his factory. The police are continuing with the investigation. The police are yet to arrest one of the co-accused and recover the weapons of offence. There is a force in the submissions of Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, that releasing the petitioners on bail

¶57

10

¶58

2025:HHC:27448

¶59

will interfere with the investigation being carried out in the matter. 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:-

¶60

“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 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”

¶61

A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in

¶62

Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032, wherein it was observed: -

¶63

“13. One of the signif i cant factors in determining this 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 aforded by a f

¶64

11

¶65

2025:HHC:27448

¶66

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.”

¶67

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

¶68

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

¶69

“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 knew 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.”

¶70

Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to pre-

¶71

arrest bail on this consideration as well.

¶72

In view of the above, the present petitions fail and the same are dismissed.

¶73

The observations made here-in-before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶74

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶75

14^th August 2025 (Chander)

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp

Ram Asra Vs State of Hp

Satish Kumar Vs State of Hp

Parkash Sawant Vs Balbir Chauhan

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp

Ludar Singh Vs State of Hp