Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Chaudhary vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
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
r 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
::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
2
2025:HHC:27448
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
.
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.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
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
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
3
2025:HHC:27448
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.
2. 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
::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
4
2025:HHC:27448
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.
3. 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.
4. 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
::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
5
2025:HHC:27448
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. I have given 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 the power of pre-
::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
6
2025:HHC:27448
arrest 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 but also several other purposes. Power underSection 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 beproperly 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 onlywhen 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:
“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::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
7
2025:HHC:27448the 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 fitcases.”
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 preventthe misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent
individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in
maintaining a delicate balance between individual rightsand the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk
lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individualrights 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 impacton 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.”
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
::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
8
2025:HHC:27448
presumption of innocence cannot be a reason to grant bail. It was
observed at page 501:
.
“21. The parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail in a se-
rious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. An-
ticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circum-
stances where the court is prima facie of the view that the ap-
plicant has been falsely implicated in the crime or the allega-
tions are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the
case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any excep-
tional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner-
accused for the grant of anticipatory bail, and there is no fri-
volity in the prosecution.
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)
“34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the sever-
ity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of
the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, rea-
sonable 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 con-
siderations. 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 presump-
tion of innocence is one of the considerations which the court
should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipa-
tory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the ac-
cused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage
::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
9
2025:HHC:27448
to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of
public justice.
12. The present petitions are to be decided as per the
.
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. 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
::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
10
2025:HHC:27448
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:-
“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented thanquestioning 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 usefulinformation 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 conditionwould 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 becountenanced, for such an argument can be advanced by all
accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume thatresponsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a
responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of
disinterring offences would not conduct themselves asoffender”
14. 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::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS
11
2025:HHC:27448bail 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.”
15. 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 theaccused 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 anticipatorybail.”
16. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to pre-
arrest bail on this consideration as well.
17. In view of the above, the present petitions fail and the
same are dismissed.
18. 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.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
14th August 2025
(Chander)
::: Downloaded on – 14/08/2025 21:27:58 :::CIS