Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Manpreet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Hp - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) Nos. 118 and 123 of 2026
Decided On : 03-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General

Pre-arrest bail denied in serious offences of abduction, assault and robbery where petitioners named by co-accused, custodial interrogation needed for ongoing investigation with recoveries pending, and no parity with regular bail of co-accused.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 140(1), 115(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5) and Arms Act - Section 25 - Pre-arrest bail - Offences of abduction at gunpoint, assault and robbery - Petitioners named by arrested co-accused whose disclosures corroborated by CCTV footage - Investigation ongoing with recovery of weapon pending - Custodial interrogation necessary for effective probe - Pre-arrest bail extraordinary power exercised sparingly only in exceptional cases considering gravity of offence, need for interrogation and risk to investigation - No parity with co-accused granted regular bail post-arrest as considerations differ - Petitions dismissed. (Paras 8-26)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory bail - Statements of co-accused though inadmissible in trial relevant for further investigation and interrogation - Naming by co-accused valid ground to deny pre-arrest bail pending custodial questioning. (Paras 17-21)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case of victim abducted from shop at gunpoint, beaten in jungle, robbed of money and dumped - Co-accused arrested, named petitioners and identified vehicle - CCTV confirmed incident, blood-stained weapons recovered from spot - Investigation continuing.

Findings of Court:
Petitions for pre-arrest bail dismissed - Observations confined to disposal, no bearing on merits.

Issues: Whether petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail on parity with co-accused granted regular bail; whether naming solely by co-accused insufficient for arrest; necessity of custodial interrogation.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-arrest bail not granted where custodial interrogation required to recover concealed evidence and elicit information; interferes with investigation if granted prematurely; presumption of innocence alone insufficient; balance individual liberty with public justice and fair probe.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. pre-arrest bail petition in abduction-robbery fir with parity claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners seek parity; state distinguishes pre-arrest bail. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. anticipatory bail extraordinary power, exercised sparingly. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. co-accused naming justifies denying pre-arrest bail. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. heinous offence; no parity with regular bail. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
7. pre-arrest bail petitions dismissed. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 82 of 2025, dated 2.11.2025, registered at Police Station, Mehatpur, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 140 (1), 115(2) and 351(3) read with Section 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrayed as accused based on the complaint made by one Shubham Raijada. The police arrested one Ashutosh, and he was released on bail. Anmol Singh Rana was arrested on 17.12.2025, and he was also released on bail. The petitioners are also entitled to bail based on parity. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Bail is a rule, and Jail is an exception. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

3. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports asserting that the victim, Shubham Raijada, was called to his shop. He was taken from the shop in a vehicle by two people at gunpoint. He was beaten in a jungle. He was subsequently taken in the vehicle towards Santoshgarh. Rs.22,000/- was snatched from him, and he was thrown at Laverio-Ka-Bada. The police registered an FIR and investigated the matter. The police recovered the blood-stained stick, stones and wheel spanner from the spot. The police checked the CCTV footage, and the recording confirmed the victim’s version. The police arrested Asutosh alias Ashu Dubey, who named Anmol Rana alias Minkal, Manpreet alias Mani and Sudhanshu Attri as the assailants. The police arrested Anmol Rana alias Minkal, who confirmed the version of Ashutosh. He identified the vehicle used in the incident. The police searched for Vikas and Manpreet; however, they were apprehended. The investigation is continuing. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are being arrested based on the statement made by the co-accused. The petitioners have no role in the commission of the offence. They would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. The co-accused have been released on bail, and the petitioners are entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the co-accused were released on bail by the Court after their arrest. The considerations for pre-arrest bail and regular bail are different. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity based on the regular bail granted to the co-accused. Hence, 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 record 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 arrest is a part of the investigation procedure. The power of pre-arr