Himachal Pradesh High Court
Madhu Bala vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) Nos. 163 & 164 of 2025
Reserved on: 03.03.2025.
Date of Decision: 10.03.2025
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 163 of 2025
Madhu Bala …Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 164 of 2025
Roop Lal Shukla …Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate,
in both the petitions.
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General,
in both the petitions.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for
seeking their pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that F.I.R. No. 6
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
of 2025, dated 06.01.2025 was registered against the petitioners
for committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and
506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Rampur Bushehar,
District Shimla, H.P. The petitioners had filed bail petitions before
learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehar, which were dismissed
on 20.01.2025 on the ground that the petitioners joined the
investigation only on 19.01.2025. No notice was issued to the
petitioners. The petitioners contacted the Investigation Officer,
who asked them to join the investigation on 14.01.2025 but
changed the date to 15.01.2025. The petitioners approached the
Investigating Officer on 15.01.2025, who told them to visit the
police station on the next day, as he was transferred to Police
Station Dhalli, Shimla. The petitioners joined the investigation on
19.01.2025 and answered all the questions asked by the
Investigating Officer. The petitioners were falsely implicated, and
they had nothing to do with the commission of the crime. The
dispute between the parties relates to the payment of money,
which is a civil dispute. The petitioners would abide by all the
terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the
petition.
3
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the informant/victim made a complaint to the
police stating that the petitioners are running a business in the
name and style of One Touch Trading Solution Company. They
used to collect money from different people by assuring them to
give a handsome return of 15% on the invested money. The people
invested various amounts with the petitioners. The petitioners
failed to pay the assured return and even to return the money. The
victims had borrowed the money from various sources to get a
higher return, and they were unable to return the borrowed
money. Petitioner-Roop Ram Shukla purchased four bighas of
land at Narkanda, one plot at Uttrakhand and one kothi at
Zirakpur with the money collected from people. The petitioners
threatened the victims when they sought the return of their
invested money. The police registered the FIR and conducted the
investigation. The police found that various amounts were
transferred to the petitioners’ accounts by RTGS, UPI and cash.
The petitioners had failed to pay the return as promised by them
and even to return the money. The transfer of the money was
established by the record taken from the Bank. The petitioners
obtained pre-arrest bail from learned Sessions Judge Rampur
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
Bushehar. Petitioner Madhu Bala joined the investigations on
16.01.2025 and 17.01.2025, and the petitioner, Roop Ram Shukla,
joined the investigation only on 19.01.2025. The investigation is
continuing, and it has been found that One Touch Trading
Solution is not a company but a firm. The petitioners had initially
returned the money taken by them with interest to assure the
people about their intentions. The bank accounts of the petitioners
show a huge transfer of money. The police are to ascertain the
money taken by the petitioners and the investments made by
them. The petitioners would abscond in case of their release on
bail. The people have resentment against the petitioners, and they
can take recourse to demonstrations, which would hamper the
public order. The petitioners are not cooperating with the police,
and their custodial interrogation is necessary; hence, the status
report.
3. I have heard Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
were falsely implicated. Informants Kuldeep Azad and Naresh
Kumar are members of Shri Venketeshwara Trading Academy
Private Limited with the petitioner Roop Lal Shukla. They joined
the other informants to compel the petitioners to settle the
accounts with them. The bail proceedings cannot be used for
recovery of the amount. The petitioners would join the
investigation as and when directed to do so and abide by all the
terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, he
prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be
released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Cr.MP(M) No. 2226 of 2022 titled Geeta Kashyap vs. State of H.P.
decided on 01.12.2023 in support of his submission.
5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General, submitted that the petitioners had taken the money from
various people after assuring them of a high return. They initially
paid the money to the investors with the promised returns to win
the people’s confidence. The petitioners obtained money from
various people and failed to return it. They invested the money in
buying properties at various places. The various investments made
by the petitioners and the magnitude of the fraud committed by
the petitioners are to be ascertained. The petitioners are not
6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
cooperating in the investigation, and their custodial interrogation
is necessary; hence, he prayed that the present petitions be
dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.
Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that
the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised
sparingly. It was observed:
“67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the
investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused
but 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 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.”
8. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State
of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held:
7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
“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.”
9. 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
8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and
circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just
outcome.”
10. The present petitions have to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. The status report shows that the petitioners had
represented that they would invest the money deposited with
them and pay a 15% return. They failed to pay the promised return
or even to return the amount so taken by them from various
people. It was specifically stated that petitioner Roop Ram Shukla
had purchased various properties at various places with the money
so taken by him. The petitioner-Madhu Bala had used the money
to recoup the loss sustained by her in her business. These
averments, prima facie, show that the petitioners had taken the
money with no intention to return it; hence, prima facie, the
petitioners are involved in the commission of an offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
12. The status report shows that petitioner-Roop Ram
Shukla had not joined the investigation from 10.01.2025 till
19.01.2025. He joined the investigation only on one day, i.e. on
19.01.2025. The petitioner, Roop Ram Shukla, asserted in his
petition that he suffered from stomach pain and had to visit
9
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
Chandigarh. He remained under treatment on 17.01.2025 and
18.01.2025. This plea is prima facie not acceptable. The petitioner
would have taken the treatment from the nearest hospital at
Rampur Bushehar instead of the hospital at Chandigarh had he
been present at Rampur. It shows that the petitioner was never
present at Rampur Bushehar and remained at Chandigarh, which
corroborates the averments in the status report that the petitioner
had no intention of joining the investigation.
13. It was submitted that the informants Kuldeep Azad and
Naresh Kumar are the subscribers of Shree Venketeshwara
Trading Academy Private Limited. A photocopy of the Form No.
INC33 was placed on record to show this fact. Merely because two
of the informants are subscribers of a different company will not
mean that the complaint made by them is false. The police found
after the investigation that money was so transferred from the
informant’s account to the petitioners’ account, which
corroborates the prosecution’s version regarding the payment of
money to the petitioners. The payment of funds to petitioners and
membership in a company are two distinct transactions that
cannot be conflated. Hence, this submission will not help the
petitioners.
10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
14. The petitioners are involved in the commission of an
economic crime, which is committed after due deliberation. It was
held in P Chidambaram (supra) that economic offences are to be
treated differently from other offences while considering pre
arrest bail. It was observed:
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of
economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different
class as they affect the economic fabric of society.
In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar
Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2
SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic
offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
xxxxxx
80. Observing that economic offence is committed with
deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless
of the consequence to the community, in State of
Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [State of
Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364: 1987
SCC (Cri) 364], it was held as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5)
“5. … The entire community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy of the
State are not brought to book. A murder may be
committed in the heat of the moment upon passions
being aroused. An economic offence is committed
with cool calculation and deliberate design with an
eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence
to the community. A disregard for the interest of the
community can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the
system to administer justice in an even-handed
manner without fear of criticism from the quarters
11
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye
unmindful of the damage done to the national
economy and national interest.”
81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class
apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552],
the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35)
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need
to be visited with a different approach in the matter of
bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need
to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing a serious threat to the financial health of
the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
82. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar
Bajoria [Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998)
1 SCC 52: 1998 SCC (Cri) 261], in Directorate of
Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [Directorate of
Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, (1999) 5 SCC 720: 1999
SCC (Cri) 1045], while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement
Directorate against the order [Bherchand Tikaji Bora v. State
of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2140 of 1998,
decided on 21-7-1998 (Bom)] of the Single Judge of the
Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the
12
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order
of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail.
15. The status report shows that the police has to trace the
various investments made by the petitioners from the money so
collected by them. This is also necessary to show the bona fides of
the petitioners. If the petitioners had genuinely invested the
money and could not get the return which they hoped, it would
show their innocence, while on the other hand, if they had
invested the money in the instruments from which the promised
return could not have been procured, it would show their
fraudulent intention. Hence, the collection of the material
regarding the investments made by the petitioners is necessary.
16. The status report shows that the petitioners had not
joined the investigations and they have not cooperated. Since their
joining the investigation and cooperation is necessary for proper
investigation of the case; hence, the plea of the prosecution that
the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary has to be
accepted as correct. 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: –
13
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-orientated
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”
17. 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 be also
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.”
18. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of
pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigation. It was observed:
14
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5522 )
“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.”
19. In view of the above, the petitioners do not deserve the
concession of pre-arrest bail; hence, the present petitions fail and
the same are dismissed.
20. The observation made hereinabove shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the merits of the cases.
21. The present petition stand disposed of, and so are the
pending applications, if any.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
10th March, 2025
(saurav pathania)