Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly. The court must balance individual liberty against public interest, and the existence of criminal antecedents for similar offences can be a decisive factor in denying such bail.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. No.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 21 of 2026 dated 13.02.2026, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) and 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, Ajay Ali and the informant Rafi Mahomad were unloading stones f.rom a tractor trolley. The petitioner objected to illegal mining, took out a pistol, fired in the air, slapped the informant aHnd threatened him in Punjabi. The police recovered one fired cartridge from the spot. The petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated due to local rivalry. The petitioner had objected to the informant’s illegal mining. He had even prepared a video recording, which had enraged the informant. The petitioner has joined the investigation pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-I, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. He will cooperate with the investigation and abide by the terms and condihtions that the Courts may impose. The petitioner has deep rgoots in the society and there is no likelihood of his absconding. iHence, the present petition

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Rafi Mohamad was unloading a trolley of stones at Barar Stone Crusher, Chakmipur, on 11.02.2026. The petitioner abused him and gave him beatings. The petitioner took out a pistol and shot into the air. The police registered F.I.R and investigated the matter. The police recovered an empty cartridge on the spot. The petitioner produced the video recording of the incident, which is being verified. F.I.R No. 23.7 of 2025, dated 22.11.2025, was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce the weapon desHpite repeated interrogation. Hence, the status report

4. I have heard Mr Mohit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Mohit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commis sion of the crime. The petitioner’s version that he made video recording of the incident, and a false case was made against him, cannot be ruled out. The petitioner cannot be compelled to produce the weapon of offence as he has a right to silence. He relied upon the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Bijender vs State of Haryana, SLP (Crl.) No. (s) 1079 of 2024, dated 06.03.2024 and Hemant Kumar vs. State of Haryana, SLP (Crl.) No. (s) 232 of 2024, dated 06.03.2024, in support of his submission.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the investigation is at the initial stage. The police are yet to recover the weapon of offence. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he is likely. to indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the preseHnt petition be dismissed.

7. I have given a 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. Chid