Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Divyansh Awasthi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 1435 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Surinder Saklani
For the Respondents:Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate State General
The court emphasised that pre-arrest bail is exceptional and should balance individual rights with public interest, with strict scrutiny on the nature of the accusations.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 69 - Pre-arrest bail application - The Court emphasized the extraordinary nature of the power of pre-arrest bail, necessitating caution and discretion based on the accused's character and the seriousness of the allegations (Paras 8-12).
(B) Balancing individual rights and public interest is critical in granting anticipatory bail, with the burden on the accused to demonstrate exceptional circumstances (Paras 10-11).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of a serious offence, claimed false implication and pledged cooperation during investigation while opposing evidence raised concerns over intimidation.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was granted bail, set under strict conditions to ensure compliance and avoid interference.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can be released on bail given the serious accusations and possibility of witness intimidation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the absence of corroborative evidence and the victim's refusal for a medical examination favored the petitioner, highlighting the importance of weighing the testimony's credibility.
Result: The petition is allowed, granting bail under specific conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail for false implication. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition explains victim's claims and investigation status. (Para 3 , 4 , 7) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides regarding innocence and the nature of crime. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court highlights criteria and concerns regarding bail under serious charges. (Para 8) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1435 of 2025 Reserved on: 7.7.2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025 Divyansh Awasthi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh .... Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate State General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge g The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pire-arrest bail in FIR No.9 of 2025, dated 18.06.2025, registered at Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short “BNS”), 2023.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The parties have attained the age of discretion. The victim was a tenant in the petitioner’s house, who resided there for only one month. She made a false complaint belatedly. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Chamba. He has roots in society. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim came in contact with the petitioner. The petitioner promised to marry the victim. He came to the victim’s room on 21-22/01/2025 and told her that he had talked to his parents about the marriage, and they had agreed to the proposal. He entered into a physical relationship with the victim. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. She subsequently made a statement that the physical relationship was maintained on 18-19.01.2025. The police seized the articles and the samples. The result of FSL is awaited. The victim refused to undergo the medical examination; hence, her medical examination was not conducted. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses and would abscond. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
5. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. He is cooperating with the investigation, and the custody of the petitioner is not required; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.
6. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He would intimidate the witnesses an d commit a similar crime in case of his release on bail.
Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records of the case 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 the power of pre- arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:
“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrHest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be
