IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 482 of 2026 Reserved on: 31.3.2026 Date of Decision: 08.4.2026.

Manoj Kumar @ Manu Tomar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram u Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate.

Forh the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, g assisted by ASI Vijay Kumar, PS Bhuntar and HC Suresh, No.

i 442 T/C Cyber Cell, Kullu, HP.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 37 of 2026 dated 28.2.2026 registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under section 126(2), 308(3), 62 and 3 (5)/111(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

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

2. It has been asserted that the FIR was registered against an unknown person, and the petitioner was arrayed subsequently without any cogent material. The petitioner is a social worker, and he is running an NGO in Delhi. He enjoys a good reputation in society. The petitioner joined the investigation on 20.03.2026 and 21.03.2026, at Police Station, Palam, Delhi and cooperated with the Investigating Agency. The vehicle and the SIM sutated to be involved in the commission of the offence do noot belong to the petitioner. The petitioner was undergoinCg medical treatment in Delhi on 27.02.2026, and this fact is duly supported by the medical record and the CCTV footage. The petitioner has already filed complaints against the police before the Hon’ble Governor of Himachal Pradesh and the HDirector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition for transit bail, which was allowed on 22.03.2026. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi, and he has deep roots in the society. There is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from justice. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family, and his family would suffer from his incarceration. His custodial interrogation is not required, and his arrest would serve no fruitful purpose. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filiHng a status report asserting that the informant, Ashwani Kumar, made a complaint to the police stating that he was going to his home in his vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-66B-9099 with Krishan Dev. A Scorpio bearing the words ‘Government of India’ overtook and stopped in front of the informant’s vehicle. Three people came out of the Scorpio and tried to drag the informant out of his vehicle. The informant got frightened by the incident and sped away fro m the spot. Informant’s Manager Pradeep called him at about 8 PM and told him that three persons came to the informant’s crusher, who identified themselves as officers of the Enforcement Department and told him that the informant should bring ₹ 20 to 25 lakhs within 24 hours, otherwise the crusher would be sealed, and the informant would have to suffer serious consequences. This incident was witnessed by Pawan and Krishan Dev. The informant received a call from the mobile number xxxxx337 on 30.12.2025. The caller identified himself as an officer of the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police checked the CCTV footage and found the registration number of the vehicle to be DL-11-CB9528; however, this number was fake and not found to be registered in the name of any person. The police checked the call detail record of Mobile No. xxx337 and found that a call was made to the informant’s mobile number from this mobile. This mobile number was issued to Ravinder Kumar. The IMEI number was searched, which revealed that this mobile number was ualso used by the petitioner in his mobile phone. The toweor location of the mobile was found around the place of tChe incident. The investigation is continuing. The petition