Anil Kumar Vs State of Hp — Anticipatory Bail | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

Anil Kumar Vs State of Hp — Anticipatory Bail | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Anil Kumar, is entitled to pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail in FIR No. 80 of 2025 registered under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) BNS and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's production of the weapon of offence (the saw used to cut the trees) prima facie shows his involvement in the commission of the crime.

Ratio / Principle

Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary because he is not disclosing the stolen timber and the vehicle used to transport it, and where custodial interrogation is required pre-arrest bail should not be granted (State v. Anil Sharma; Mukesh Khurana; P. Chidambaram).

Key takeaways

In view of his criminal antecedents (FIR No. 118 of 2023 pending; FIR No. 36/25 compounded) and applying the parameters in Aminodin, V. Senthil Balaji, Union of India v. Barakathullah and Pinki, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail.ratio¶66
The petition should not have been filed directly before this Court without first approaching the Sessions Court (Mohammed Rasal C; Jagdeo Prasad) and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.ratio¶82
The observations made in the judgment are confined to the disposal of the instant petition and have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Rakesh Kainthla, J.), by order dated 13.10.2025 in Cr. MP(M) No. 2334 of 2025, dismissed Anil Kumar's application for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 80 of 2025, Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, registered under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act for alleged cutting and theft of khair trees. Dismissal rested on three grounds drawn from the status report: (i) the petitioner had produced the saw used to cut the trees, which prima facie showed his involvement; (ii) he was not disclosing the stolen timber and the vehicle used to transport it, justifying custodial interrogation, for which pre-arrest bail must be refused (State Versus Anil Sharma; Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi); P. Chidambaram); and (iii) he had criminal antecedents — FIR No. 118 of 2023 pending and FIR No. 36/25 compounded — which weigh against bail (Aminodin vs State of H.P.; V. Senthil Balaji; Union of India v. Barakathullah; Pinki v. State of U.P.). Independently, the petition was held liable to be dismissed because it approached the High Court directly without first moving the Sessions Court, contrary to the concurrent-jurisdiction hierarchy under Section 482 BNSS (formerly Section 438 Cr.P.C.) endorsed in Mohammed Rasal C and Jagdeo Prasad. All observations were confined to the disposal of the petition and were stated to have no bearing on the merits of the case.

2025:HHC:34447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 2334 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.10.2025 Date of Decision: 13.10.2025.

Anil Kumar ...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 Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 80 of 2025, dated 06.09.2025, registered at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

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

2 2025:HHC:34447

It has been asserted that the police registered FIR on the complaint of one Brahm Singh, Beat Incharge, Forest Block, Fatehpur, on the allegations that Khair trees were cut and stolen. One vehicle was spotted in the CCTV footage, but its registration number was not legible. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, and the police are searching for him. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged felling of the tree or the vehicle spotted in the CCTV footage. The petitioner has a reasonable apprehension of his arrest. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant was on patrolling duty on 06.09.2025 at 8:30 AM in UP 130 Bagdoli C-3, and he noticed the seven stumps of khair trees. He found after enquiry that the trees were cut on the night of 06.09.2025 between 1:00 a.m. to 3:30 a.m. He informed his superior officer, who checked the CCTV footage and found a vehicle going towards the spot at 1:53 a.m. on 06.09.2025. However, its registration number was not legible. The CCTV camera footage at Sihana and Dini was also checked, and the same vehicle was spotted in the CCTV footage. The trees were removed from the spot. The department investigated the

3 2025:HHC:34447

matter. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police checked the CCTV footage and found the registration number of the vehicle to be HP 88A- 2879, which was registered in the name of Balwinder. Another vehicle was found following this vehicle, but it had no rear registration plate. The police searched for Balwinder Singh @ Banti and checked his call details. The location of Balwinder Singh was found to be similar to the location of another mobile number XXXX951. Balwinder Singh had also talked to this mobile number and XXX849 at 2:46 am. These mobile numbers were found to belong to Anil Kumar and Ajay Kumar. The petitioner joined the investigation, and he did not disclose the details of the vehicle and the case property. He produced the saw, which was used to cut the tree. He also identified the place where the trees were cut. FIR No. 118 of 2023 and FIR No. 36/25 were registered against the petitioner. FIR No. 118/23 was pending before the Court, and FIR No.36/25 was compounded. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4 2025:HHC:34447

Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He joined the investigation as per the directions of the Court. He produced the saw. No recovery is to be effected from him. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner did not produce the stolen timber and the vehicle which was used for the commission of an offence. He has criminal antecedents and is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

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 prearrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. 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

5 2025:HHC:34447

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 are considered 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.”

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

6 2025:HHC:34447

we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.”

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, 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.”

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

The status report shows that the petitioner has produced the weapon of offence, which prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime.

7 2025:HHC:34447

The status report also shows that the petitioner is not disclosing the stolen timber and the vehicle which was used for transporting the stolen timber. This justifies the plea made on behalf of the State that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the stolen timber and weapon of offence. 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 elicitationoriented 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”

8 2025:HHC:34447

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 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.”

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.”

The status report shows that the FIR No. 118 of 2023 is

pending against the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner

has criminal antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the

relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P.

9 2025:HHC:34447

2024: HHC: 6091 and held, after referring to various judgments,

that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime.

It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner can become a threat to society because of her criminal antecedents, she should not be released on bail. It was observed:

“27….An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.”

Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah,

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons were involved in the commission of similar offences, they should not be released on bail. It was observed: -

“20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half years, apart from the fact that all the respondents are shown to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the chargesheet against the respondents, except accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6,

10 2025:HHC:34447

who are shown to have been involved in two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion, the High Court should not have taken a lenient view, more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA.

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P. , (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 that liberty of a person has to be balanced with peace and harmony in society. Liberty cannot be elevated to such a high pedestal as would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. It was observed at page 384:

“65. We are absolutely conscious that the liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for the deprivation of the liberty of a person has an immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of emptiness. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of law, an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. Individual liberty is restricted by larger social interests, and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society, an individual is expected to live with dignity, having respect for the law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a society

11 2025:HHC:34447

governed by the rule of law has to be regulated, and such regulations, which are the source of law, subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for the protection of human rights and the security of the collective. This is because, fundamentally, laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interests. That is why Edmond Burke, while discussing about liberty, opined, “ it is regulated freedom ”.

66. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude, but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society, the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing, J. Oerter stated: “ Personal liberty is the right to act without interference within the limits of the law .”

67. Thus analysed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one, and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardised, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti-collective act. (See: Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172 .)

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to

bail because of his criminal antecedents.

12 2025:HHC:34447

The present petition shows that the petitioner has approached this Court directly. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal C versus State of Kerala and Anr. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6588 of 2025, decided on 08.09.2025, that the party should not be encouraged to approach the High Court directly without approaching the Court of Sessions. It was observed: -

“We find that in this case, the petitioners had approached the High Court directly for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for short, ‘BNSS’), without first approaching the Sessions Court for the said relief. We are of the opinion that though the concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the Sessions Court and the High Court to entertain a prayer for prearrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 CrPC), the hierarchy of Courts demands that no person seeking such remedy should be encouraged or allowed to directly approach the High Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 CrPC) by bypassing the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Court.

7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrPC in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court, which would have direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have immediate access to the Case Diary, thereby facilitating a better appreciation of the facts of the case.

13 2025:HHC:34447

8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications, thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking a remedy of prearrest bail, there is a strong probability that a significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only, thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court.

9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail, and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/extraordinary circumstances.”

This position was reiterated in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of

Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108, wherein it was observed:

“6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste with which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that the High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly intervening itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an

14 2025:HHC:34447

opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-complainant as a party.”

Therefore, the present petition should not have been

filed before this Court and is also liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed.

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

13^th October, 2025 (Nikita)