Rhakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking ipre-arrest bail in FIR No. 44 of 2026 dated 07.04.2026, registered at Police Station Barotiwala, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 331 (4) and 305 read withSection 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

2. It has been asserted that police had arrested Mahajan Singh and Mahender Singh, who were released on bail by the learned Additional CJM, Kasauli, on 20.04.2026. The petitioner’s name was mentioned by the police in the status report filed before learned Additional CJM Kasauli, and the pe.titioner came to know that he was being falsely implicated. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Mandi. He will abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner, and his identification is also not required. Hence, it was prayed thatr the present petition be allowed and thepetitioner be released on interim bail.

3. The State has filed a copy of the FIR in which it was asserted that the informant was posted in M/s ANG Lifesciences India Ltd. The store was inspected on 03.03.2026 at 2:30 PM, and it was found that the APIs and four boxes were missing. These were worth ₹ 8-9 lakh. This stock was available in the store as per the verification made on 14.02.2026. The search was made for the material, but it could not be found in the CCTV footage, which was checked, and it was found that the material was being transported on 02.03.2026 at about 11:05 PM. The policeregistered the FIR and investigated the matter.

4. I have heard Mr M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned AdditionalAdvocate General for the respondent-State.

5. Mr M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocenft and that he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him to the commission of a crime. The petitioner would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner bereleased on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate hGeneral for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is the main conspirator. He did not co-operate with the investigation after he was granted interim bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan. The destination of the drugs/API is to be determined, and the details of the crime are to be unearthed. Hence, the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary. Heprayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the recordscarefully.

8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcefment, (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 wasobserved:

“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 thehsame has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases.g The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the i nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the H applicant fleeing justice, and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes with the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and it has to be gra