The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking his pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that F.I.R. No. 2 of 2025, dated 08.1.2025, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable underSections 420 , 406 , 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) at Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner is running a business of Self-Driven Car Rental under the name and style of ‘RBEFZ Rental Cars and Bikes’. As per the prosecution, the informant supplied the cars to the petitioner, and when he demanded his cars back, the petitioner refused to return the cars. He also threatened the informant. This story is concocted and highly improbable. The petitioner is running a business, and many people are dependent upon him for their livelihood. His child was born on 12.02.2025, and he has to take care of his wife and the child. His parents are aged and dependent upon him. He is suffering from a kidney stone and has to visit the doctor. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Kangra, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all 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 made a written complaint to the police stating that the petitioner had told the informant that he was running a Self-Driven Car Rental with his father and friend. The petitioner was attaching the cars to various government departments. He asked the informant to attach his vehicles to the informant’s business. The petitioner assured the informant to get the vehicles financed from the financer. He promised to pay ₹15,000/- as rent for each vehicle. The informant and his father purchased two vehicles and attached them to the petitioner’s business. The petitioner paid rent for only 2-3 months. The informant demanded the vehicles on which the petitioner threatened him. The informant made the enquiries and found that no company was established by the petitioner, and no vehicle was attached to the government department. The petitioner misappropriated the informant’s vehicles. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. One vehicle belonging to Kritika was recovered. Another vehicle belonging to Madan Lal was produced by one Gurpreet Singh. The petitioner obtained the pre-arrest bail, and he joined the investigation on 19.02.2025, but thereafter he did not join the investigation. He produced one vehicle belonging to Rajesh Kumar. The Investigating Officer also seized vehicles belonging to the informant, Ajay Kumar and Chaman Lal. Five vehicles have been seized by the police. The petitioner did not join the investigation after 19.02.2025. F.I.R. No.17 of 2025, F.I.R. No. 16 of 2025 and F.I.R. No. 23 of 2025 have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is not revealing the addresses of Parveen and Virag. His custodial interrogation is required. He can dispose of the vehicles and intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr Sahil Thakur and Mr Devin Kumar, Advocates learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr Sahil Thakur, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He joined the investigation on 19.02.2025 but could not join the investigation