Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, particularly in cases involving economic offences, where custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 27 of 2025, dated 20.01.2025 was registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). As per the prosecution, the informant’s wife had lodged an FIR No. 32/2022 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC at Police Station Ramshehar against the informant and his family members. The informant wanted to file a petition for quashing the aforementioned FIR before the High Court. He met the petitioner at Baddi. The petitioner told the informant that he knew many Advocates in the Supreme Court and High Court. He would talk to them and ensure the filing of the petition for quashing of the FIR before the High Court. The petitioner asked the informant to pay him Rs. 1,50,000/-. The informant paid Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner went to Bikaner where the informant was posted. He obtained the informant’s vakalatnama and got his affidavit attested at the District Court, Bikaner. The informant did not contact the petitioner afterwards. He did not sign the copy of the petition. The petitioner tried to contact the informant but he did not succeed. The informant filed an application before the Court and FIR No.27 of 2025 was registered pursuant to the orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh. The petitioner joined the investigation on 18.03.2025 at 7:45 AM, as per the direction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant intended to file a petition for quashing of FIR No.32/2022 registered by his wife against him and his family members. The informant met the petitioner in Baddi. The petitioner informed the informant that he was an Advocate practising in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. He assured the informant to file a petition for quashing of the FIR. The petitioner demanded a fee of Rs.1,50,000/-, and the informant paid Rs. 74,500/- to the petitioner through Google Pay. However, the petitioner did not file any petition and also not respond to the calls of the informant. Subsequently, the informant discovered that the petitioner was not an Advocate but a local reporter based in Baddi. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police checked the statement of account and found that the informant had transferred Rs. 35,000/- through Google pay to the petitioner’s account on different dates. He had also transferred Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner’s account from the account of his friend Suraj. He paid Rs.24,000/- to the petitioner in cash. No petition was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed the pre-arrest bail petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who directed the petitioner to join the investigation. The petitioner did not join the investigation and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is to be interrogated and the amount is to be recovered from him; hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr Sudhir Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He had taken the money from the informant to file a petition in the High Court. The petitioner contacted a counsel to file the petition. The petition was drafted but the informant never appeared in the office of the Advocate to sign the petition. The petitioner was ready to return the amount taken by him from the informant. Therefore, he