SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kamil Mohammed - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) Nos. 379 and 398 of 2026
Decided On : 30-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/State:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General

Anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional cases, considering serious allegations, potential for witness tampering, and necessity for custodial interrogation.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 302(2) and 3(5) - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Pre-arrest bail petitions filed against crimes involving timber theft and associated offenses - The accused claimed false implication without evidence linking them directly to the crimes - Emphasis on seriousness of offenses and need for custodial interrogation. (Paras 3, 4, 19)

(B) Pre-arrest Bail - Nature and gravity - The Court underscored that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary measure, to be granted sparingly and exceptional circumstances must justify such relief - The petitioners' previous record and cooperation with ongoing investigations were critical. (Paras 9, 10, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in relation to timber theft allegations, asserting innocence. Their claims pointed to lack of evidence and reliance on a co-accused's statement, claimed to be inadmissible. Status reports indicated serious offenses connected to environmental damage with ongoing investigations into the conspiracy.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the allegations serious, emphasizing that granting pre-arrest bail could obstruct investigations. It distinguished between regular bail and pre-arrest bail, affirming the necessity for custodial interrogation in this context.

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioners could be granted pre-arrest bail based on claims of false implication and adequacy of evidence presented.

Ratio Decidendi: The ruling stressed the inherent risks of granting anticipatory bail during ongoing investigations, stating that it could shield the petitioners from necessary interrogation by authorities. The prerequisites for granting such bail were deemed unmet in this case.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. filing of petitions for pre-arrest bail. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of the case and allegations. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments from both parties regarding innocence and threat to witnesses. (Para 6 , 7)
4. judicial caution in granting anticipatory bail related to investigations. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 20)
5. inadmissibility of co-accused statements and distinction between bail types. (Para 14 , 23)
6. conclusion of bail petitions dismissal. (Para 25 , 26)
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 35 of 2026, dated 25.02.2026, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, H.P.

2. Since both the bail petitions have arisen out of the same F.I.R., hence, they are being taken up together for disposal.

3. It has been asserted that the informant Surender Kumar, Forest Guard, reported the recovery of freshly cut logs of wood at Jamni Khad, Tehsil Poanta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. The police arrested Lekh Raj, who was granted regular bail by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. on 03.03.2026. The petitioners apprehend their arrest. They are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. There is no direct evidence connecting the petitioners to the commission of crime. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the disclosure statement made by the co-accused Lekh Raj, recorded during the police custody. The petitioner cannot be kept behind bars based on the statement made by the co-accused. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are not grave and do not justify the pre-trial detention. F.I.R. No. 293 of 2016 was registered against petitioner, Kamil Mohammad, and no other F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner Iqbal Mohammad. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail.

4. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that informant Surender Kumar, Forest Guard, was on patrolling duty in Haripur Khol Beat on 23.02.2026. He and Sandeep Saini were going towards Devwala, and they found freshly cut timber in Jamni Khad. The timber was measured on 24.02.2026, and a seizure hammer was put on them. The forest officials had found Lekh Raj near the spot, who disclosed that he had transported the timber from Johari Byala in his truck bearing registration No. HP-17B-4730. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The police arrested Lekhraj on 28.02.2026 at 7:15 p.m. Lekh Raj showed the place where the timber was put into the truck on 23.02.2026. He also disclosed that Iqbal was following the truck in his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-85-0149. The police checked CCTV footage and found that the vehicles bearing registration No. HP-17B - 4730 and Alto bearing registration No. HP-85-0149 moving together. The police searched for Iqbal Mohammad but could not trace him. The police recovered the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-85-0149 from his house. Accused Kamil Mohammad threatened the witness Khalil Mohammad, on 03.03.2026 that he would kill him and his children because he had named the accused and his truck. F.I.R. No.13 of 2026 has been registered against petitioner Kamil Mohammad. The petitioners are involved in the transportation of the timber as an organised syndicate. The petitioner, Kamil Mohammad, was in touch with Lekh Raj. The police are yet to recover the mobile phone and find out the destination of the timber. The petitioners would intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

5. I have heard Mr Desh Raj Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top