Anticipatory bail may be granted when a charge sheet is already filed rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary, especially where conflicting FIRs exist and initial allegations of grave offences appear to be improvements made during the investigation, provided the interests of justice and individual liberty are balanced.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail, in FIR No. 45 of 2025 dated 21.10.2025 registered at Police Station Ramshahar, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 79 , 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), and 352, of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). Since all the petitions have arisen out of the same FIR; therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal.

2. It has been asserted that an altercation had taken place between the petitioner Kamal Kaushal and Shopkeeper Amit Kumar over the money being charged by him (Amit Kumar). Mahesh Kaushal and Ravi Kaushal (the petitioner’s) reached the spot to rescue Kamal Kaushal and Ravinder Raj. Amit Kumar and his family members gave beatings to them. The petitioners Kamal Kaushal and Ravinder Raj filed an online complaint on 22.10.2025, and FIR No. 46 of 2025 dated 23.10.2025, was registered against the shopkeeper (Amit Kumar). The shopkeeper got a false FIR No. 45 of 2025 dated 21.10.2025, registered against the petitioners. The petitioners are innocent, and they have been falsely implicated. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

3. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information from the informant (the name being withheld to protect her identity) that some persons were quarrelling with her. The informant reached the Police Station with her husband and son. They were sent for medical examinations. The informant filed a complaint asserting that they were closing the shop on 20.10.2025 at about 10:20 PM when Kallu came to the shop and misbehaved with the informant’s husband. He talked obscenely to the informant. She objected. Kallu got into a quarrel with the informant’s husband and tore the informant’s clothes. Meet (Kallu’s brother) and other persons also came to the spot and gave beatings to the informant party. The incident was video recorded by the informant’s daughter. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The informant’s minor daughters made an allegation of molesting them during the investigation. Hence, the status report.

4. The informant also filed a reply/objection reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the FIR was lodged with the intervention of higher police officials. The informant’s minor daughters were molested. The video recording of the incident was also handed over to the police. The police tried to settle the matter between the informant party and the petitioners instead of investigating it. The petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

5. I have heard Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, and Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the informant/victim.

6. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The petitioners had also lodged an FIR No. 46 of 2025 against the informant party, and the present FIR No. 45 of 2025 was filed as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners. No allegation of molesting the minor children was made in the FIR, and the allegations are an afterthought. The po