IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 391 of 2026 Reserved on: 16.03.2026 Date of Decision: 25.3.2026.

Sukant Chauhan …. Petitioner Versus State of HP t …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Ms Ritasha, Proxy counsel.

For the Respondent-State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge H The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 64 of 2026, dated 04.03.2026, registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 115(2) of Bhartiya 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 falsely implicated due to the local rivalry and a previous dispute based on a statement made by the informant. The allegations in the FIR are exaggerated. The informant had beaten the co-accusoed, but no FIR was registered against him, whereas an FIR was registered against the petitioner under the prolitical influence. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

g3. The State filed a copy of the FIR in which it was iasserted that Naveen @ Monu, his brother Nonu, Sunny, Sukant Chauhan (the present petitioner) and his brother Jattu were quarrelling with each other on Kasohal bridge on 04.03.2026. The informant asked them not to quarrel. The informant had gone to the shop to purchase groceries on the same day at 7 PM. Naveen, Monu, Nonu, Sunny, Sukant, Jattu and 15 other persons came to the shop armed with Gandasa, sword and sticks. Naveen had Gandasa, and the petitioner had a sword. The other people had sticks. Naveen inflicted a blow on the informant’s head with a Gandasa, and the other persons also inflicted injuries with swords, sticks, kicks and fist blows. The informant became unconscious. He was taken to the hospit al. An intimation was given to the police. The police regisotered the FIR and recorded the informant’s statement.

4. I have heard Ms Ritasha, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Ms Ritasha, learned proxy counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was not present in the shop, and a false FIR was lodged against him due to political rivalry. The petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Shrama, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, had attacked the informant with deadly weapons. The informant had sustained multiple injuries. The investigation is at the preliminary stage, and the weapons of offence are yet to be recovered. The custod ial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Hence, ohe 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 arrest is a part of the investigation procedure. The power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be sparingly exercised. 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 pu