Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Yadwinder Singh Minhas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2673 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Servedaman Rathore
For the Respondents: Lokender Kutlehria

Custodial interrogation is not a tool to compel an accused to confess or provide self-incriminatory statements. A refusal to confess by an accused does not constitute non-cooperation, and bail cannot be denied solely on the grounds of an accused exercising their right to silence.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Section 303(2) - Indian Forest Act - Sections 41 and 42 - Anticipatory Bail - Right against self-incrimination - Right of silence - Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, alleging false implication - State argued need for custodial interrogation to recover stolen logs and accused's refusal to confess - Court held that refusal to confess does not constitute non-cooperation and that compulsion to provide self-incriminatory statements is impermissible under Article 20 of Constitution - Custodial interrogation is not a tool to force admissions. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 17)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Parameters - Extraordinary power to be used sparingly - Must balance individual liberty with the necessity of fair investigation - No evidence of exceptional circumstances to deny bail when custodial interrogation is sought merely based on inability to secure confessions. (Paras 8, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of purchasing stolen logs from Khair trees cut illicitly in a forest, filed for pre-arrest bail. The State contended that custodial interrogation was required because the petitioner denied his involvement and failed to produce the stolen logs.

Findings of Court:
The court found that naming by a co-accused without independent supporting material and the petitioner's refusal to confess did not justify the denial of bail.

Issues: Whether the denial of guilt or failure to produce stolen logs justifies custody and whether custodial interrogation can be used to compel self-incriminating remarks.

Ratio Decidendi: Custodial interrogation cannot be authorized solely to extract a confession or force an accused to make self-incriminating statements, as such pressure violates the constitutional right against self-incrimination and fair procedure norms.

Result: Petition allowed; interim protection made absolute subject to conditions.

Table of Content
1. summary of fir, investigation progress and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties argument regarding innocence and necessity of custody. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. parameters for granting extraordinary power of anticipatory bail. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. right against self-incrimination and definition of cooperation in investigation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. final outcome and issuance of bail conditions. (Para 19 , 20)

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 28 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 303 (2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act at Police Station Sansarpur Terrace, District Kangra, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant detected the illicit felling of 14 green Khair trees in the forest of Kotla beat UPF Jakhuni (W). These trees were cut by some unknown persons on the night of 23.08.2025. Logs of 9 Khair trees were taken, and logs of 5 Khair trees were left in the forest. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The petitioner is being falsely implicated in the aforesaid F.I.R. The story of the prosecution is highly suspicious, and there is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

3. The State has filed a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint that 14 Khair trees of different categories were cut in Kotla Beat UPF Jakhuni (W) on the night of 23.08.2025. 9 longs were taken, whereas 5 were kept in the forest. The police checked the CCTV footage and found that Bolero Neo and Tempo 407 went towards the spot and left after some time. Call details were also checked, and the involvement of Anil Kumar and Balwinder Singh was found. The police apprehended Balwinder Singh, who revealed that he, Ajay, Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi, Om Parkash @ Dana Gaddi and Driver Rohtu had cut the trees. The accused revealed during the investigation that logs were sold to the petitioner, Yadwinder Singh. The call detail record was obtained, and it was found that Om Parkash was in touch with the petitioner. The petitioner joined the investigation, but he denied his involvement. He has also not produced the stolen logs. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr. Servedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Servedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police are compelling the petitioner to confess to the commission of crime, which is impermissible. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of crime. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehira, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was named by the co-accused and his custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the stolen logs. 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 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, an 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JYadwinder Singh Minhas – AppellantVersusState Of Himachal Pradesh – RespondentCr. MP(M) No. 2673 of 2025

Custodial interrogation is not a tool to compel an accused to confess or provide self-incriminatory statements. A refusal to confess by an accused does not constitute non-cooperation, and bail cannot be denied solely on the grounds of an accused exercising their right to silence.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Yadwinder Singh Minhas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2673 of 2025