Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly, balancing individual rights with public interest, especially in serious allegations.

THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1257 of 2025 Reserved on: 01.08.2025 Date of Decision: 06.08.2025 Krishan Kumar Kasana ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

For the informant : Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 107 of 2025 dated 23.04.2025, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 221 ,224,

351(2) and 78 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a law- abiding citizen. He was telephonically called by the Station House Officer of Baddi Police Station and was to.ld about a complaint dated 23.04.2025 registered against him at the instance of the informant. He enquired about the complaint and found that an F.I.R. No. 107 of 2025, dated 23.04.2025, was registered against him. The allegations in the F.I.R. are false. The petitioner had made complairnts against the informant regarding the demand for a bribe from various persons, and the informant filed the F.I.R. against the petitioner as a counterblast to the complaints made by the petitioner against him. The petitioner would co operate with the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by a filing of a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that he was posted as a Regional Officer in Himachal Pradesh, State Pollution Control Board, with additional responsibility. The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s K.K. Enterprises. The informant took action against the petitioner. The petitioner tried to intimidate the informant on

07.10.2024. He tried to hit the vehicle of the petitioner on 07.10.2024 at a lonely place between Baddi and Shimla. The petitioner made videos of the informant’s wife an.d took her photographs. He tried to compel the informant to grant undue favour to him (petitioner). Therefore, it was prayed that the necessary action be taken against the petitioner. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The police obtained the call detail recorrd. The location of the informant was found to be at village Mullapur, SAS Nagar, Punjab, whereas the location of the petitioner was found to be at Sheetla Mata Shishma, Punjab, Kharad and thereafter at village Mullapur. This shows t hat the petitioner was following the informant. The petitioner joined the investigation. The investigation is continuing. Hence, the status report.

4. The informant also filed objections to the petition, asserting that the informant made a complaint to the Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board on 08.10.2014. He also filed a complaint against the petitioner and one Debashish Bhattacharya on 12.12.2024, but no action was taken. Hence, the complaint was made to the police. The contents of the F.I.R. were reproduced. It was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. The petitioner has filed reply to the objection, denying its contents.

6. I have heard Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Depfuty Advocate General, for the respondent/State, and Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned counsel for the informant.

7.