IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1604 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.7.2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025.

Sapna Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram o Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with HC Vipin Kumar, No. 110, from Police Post Ghatta, Police Station Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 107 of 2025, dated 30.5.2025, registered at Police Station Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. It has been

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

asserted that the petitioner is apprehensive about her arrest. She is not connected to the commission of crime. The allegations made in the FIR are false. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family. She 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-Vinay Kumar, made a complaint to the police that the locks of his two rooms were found damaged, 20 silver coins and ₹7,000/- were found missing. Similarly, Sanjeev Kumar stated that the locks of his house were found damaged o n 2.3.2025, and ₹7,000/- were found missing from the almirah. Salochna Devi stated that three unknown persons came to her house on 1.3.2025 and tried to damage the locks. She shouted for help, and the person ran away. Sia Jaswal stated that the bolts of the room were found damaged on 2.3.2025, and one mobile phone was missing. The police registered the FIR, and traced the stolen mobile phone to Rakesh Kumar. Rakesh Kumar revealed that he had purchased the mobile phone from Sagar. Police arrested Sagar. He made a statement under Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, that he could get recovered the mobile phone which was concealed by him. He led the police and the witnesses to the place and got recovered a mobile phone. Sagar also revealed during the investigation that he used to hand over the stolen articles to Sapna, the present petitioner. The police searched for Sapna, but she could not be traced. She is to be interrogated regarding the stolen articles and the involvement of other persons. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated. There is no evidence against her except the statement made by the co-accused, Sagar, which is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner helped Sagar in the disposal of the stolen property. The stolen property is to be recovered, and the involvement of the other persons is to be ascertained. Custodial interrogation of the respondent is necessary. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to thHe submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enfor cement, (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 haccused but also several other purposes. Power under Sectio