Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in cases of economic offences due to their potential to undermine public interest and the necessity for custodial interrogation.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking their pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that F.I.R. No. 6 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.

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 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 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