6.4.2026 vs Of on 21 April, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 6.4.2026 vs Of on 21 April, 2026

                                                                                   2026:HHC:12544



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                              Cr. MP(M) No. 489 of 2026
                                              Reserved on: 6.4.2026




                                                                                   .

                                              Date of Decision: 21.4.2026.





    Sukhwinder Singh                                                             .... Petitioner
                                     Versus




                                                     of
    State of HP                                                                  .... Respondent


    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
                           rt
    Whether approved for reporting?1                   No.

    For the Petitioner                          :      Mr.   Parikshit               Rathour,
                                                       Advocate.
    For the Respondent/State                    :      Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,


                                                       Additional Advocate General.
    For the victim                              :      Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.




    Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking

pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 205 of 2025, dated 21.11.2025,

registered in Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., for

the commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 120-B

and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. It has been asserted that the informant, Jyoti

Dashrath Sisodia, filed a complaint regarding the fraud of ₹28.00

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

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
2

2026:HHC:12544

lakhs. She asserted that she had deposited ₹4.00 lacs in the

account of the Eagle Advisory Agency on 12.12.2023 for sending

.

her sister abroad. However, the agency did not contact the

informant. The informant was travelling from Shimla to

Chandigarh on 05.11.2024, and she met Radhika alias Manju

Kumari and discussed the matter with her. Radhika alias Manju

of
assured the informant that Inderjeet Singh was posted as a sub-

Inspector in Police Station, Kharar, and he would assist the
rt
informant in tracing the agency. The informant contacted

Inderjeet Singh and re-initiated the immigration proceedings for

her sister. She deposited the money in the accounts of Radhika

alias Manju Kumari and Inderjeet Singh on different occasions.

They failed to honour their promise, and the informant made a

complaint to the police. The police arrested Manju, and she

disclosed that the real name of Inderjeet Singh was Sukhvinder

Singh (petitioner), and some money was transferred into his

account by Manju Kumari. The petitioner apprehends his arrest

in the aforesaid FIR based on the statement made by Manju.

There is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement

made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence.

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
3

2026:HHC:12544

Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the

petitioner be released on bail.

.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report

asserting that the informant wanted to send her younger sister to

Canada. She had paid ₹4.00 lacs to an agent on 12.12.2023.

However, the agent ran away in April 2024. The informant was

of
travelling to Chandigarh on 05.11.2024, and she met Radhika alias

Manju Kumari on the way. She revealed that she was running an
rt
NGO in Chandigarh and asked the informant about any work in

Chandigarh. The informant told Radhika alias Manju Kumari

about the fraud committed by the agent. Radhika told the

informant that Inderjeet Singh Grewal was posted as a sub-

Inspector in Kharar Police Station, and he would assist the

informant in recovering the amount. The informant talked to

Inderjeet Singh Grewal, who told her that her sister had tried for

immigration three times, nobody had visited the immigration

office, and her VISA would be rejected. He assured to send the

informant’s younger sister abroad and demanded ₹3-4 lakhs for

this process. The informant handed over the documents and the

passport to Inderjeet Singh Grewal. The informant had paid a

total amount of ₹26 to ₹27 lakhs to Radhika and Inderjeet Singh

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:12544

Grewal between 20.11.2024 and 20.02.2025. However, the

immigration process was not completed. The informant made a

.

complaint to the police, and the police registered the FIR. The

police arrested Manju, who revealed during the interrogation

that the real name of Inderjeet Singh Grewal was Sukhvinder

Singh (the present petitioner). She had transferred ₹12.00 lakhs

of
in the account of Sukhvinder Singh and had paid ₹4.00 lacs to

him in cash. The police found that the account in which the
rt
money was transferred belonged to the petitioner’s father, who

revealed during the enquiry that this account was being operated

by the petitioner. The petitioner had obtained pre-arrest bail

from the learned Trial Court, and he produced the passport of the

informant’s younger sister, which was seized by the police. The

petitioner had taken about ₹25.00 lakhs from the informant and

his sister. He would indulge in the commission of a similar

offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that

the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on

bail.

4. I have heard Mr Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:12544

Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr Ashok Kumar,

learned counsel for the victim.

.

5. Mr Parikshit Rathaur, learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was

falsely implicated. There are discrepancies in the statement of

the informant regarding the payment of the money, which makes

of
the prosecution’s case suspect. The petitioner would join the

investigation as and when directed to do so; hence, he prayed
rt
that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be

released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate

General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is

involved in an economic offence. He has criminal antecedents

and is likely to indulge in the commission of similar offences in

case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present

petition be dismissed.

7. Mr Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the victim,

adopted the submissions made by Mr Lokender Kutlehria,

learned Additional Advocate General and prayed that the present

petition be dismissed.

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
6

2026:HHC:12544

8. I have given a considerable thought to the

submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records

.

carefully.

9. 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
of the investigation procedure. The power of pre-arrest bail is

extraordinary and should be sparingly exercised. It was observed:

rt
“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 the

same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-

arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The
judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be

properly exercised after application of mind as to the
nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the

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 granted only
when the court is convinced that exceptional
circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary
remedy.”

10. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v.

State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held:

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
7

2026:HHC:12544

“25. We have already held that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it
was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any
stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is

.

the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grant
should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the
Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each

case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court
concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim
protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may

of
lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the
investigation to a great extent, as it may sometimes lead to
tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be
understood to have held that the Court shall not pass
rt
interim protection pending consideration of such
application as the Section is destined to safeguard the

freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest, and
we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit
cases.”

11. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana,

(2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should

balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation

while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was

observed:

“21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding
individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent
the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent
individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in
maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights
and the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk lies
in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights
and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and
presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also
consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society,

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:12544

and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court’s
discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and
circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just
outcome.”

.

12. It was held in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab,

(2025) 4 SCC 493: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 that pre-arrest bail

can be granted in exceptional circumstances where the Court is

of
of the view that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case,

and the presumption of innocence cannot be a reason to grant
rt
bail. It was observed on page 501:

“21. The parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail in a
serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied.
Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view

that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime
or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous.
So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said

that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by
the petitioner-accused for the grant of anticipatory bail,

and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a

pronouncement in CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy[CBIv.V. Vijay Sai
Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 563], wherein this
Court expressed thus: (SCC p. 465, para 34)
“34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:12544

the public/State and other similar considerations. It has
also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting
bail, the legislature has used the words “reasonable
grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which

.

means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only
satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case
against the accused and that the prosecution will be able

to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.
It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a

of
reasonable doubt.” (emphasis in original and
supplied)

23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the
sole consideration for the grant of anticipatory bail. The
rt
presumption of innocence is one of the considerations that
the court should keep in mind while considering the plea

for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the
cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over-
solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes,
defeat the cause of public justice.

13. The present petition has to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

14. The status report mentions that the petitioner had

produced the informant’s younger sister’s passport, which

prima facie shows his involvement in the commission of the

crime. The statements of account show that the informant had

transferred money to Radhika alias Manju Kumari, who had

transferred the money to the account of the petitioner’s father.

The petitioner’s father specifically stated that the petitioner

was operating his account. These circumstances prima facie

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:12544

show the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of the

crime.

.

15. It was submitted that the petitioner is being arrested

based on a statement made by the co-accused, which is legally

inadmissible in evidence. This submission will not help the

petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

of
Union of India vs Khaliludeen 2022 Supreme SC 1247 that bail can

be denied to the accused, who was named by the co-accused. It
rt
was observed:

“8. The answer to said question could be the statement
recorded by Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir

Hussain, recorded under Section 67 of the act, has also
named his owner Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact
that the validity and scope of such statements under

Section 67 have been pronounced upon by this Court in
Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. In State

by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and
Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 69, the rigour of law laid down
by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even

at the stage of grant of bail.

9. However, going by the circumstances on record, at this
stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam
Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands
on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face
of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court
could not and ought not to have released the accused on
bail. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the view
taken by the High Court and direct that both the appellants
be taken in custody forthwith”.

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
11

2026:HHC:12544

16. This position was reiterated in Union of India v. Ajay

Kumar Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346, wherein it was held:

.

“11. The information revealed by the above two accused persons
indicated that both of them knew the respondent-accused and
that they had connived with him to transport the illicit ganja,

and that they were in direct contact with the respondent-
accused all through his mobile number. The facts as unfurled
from the complaint/FIR and the statements of the above two
accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act

of
reveal that the respondent-accused is the kingpin and the
organiser of the illicit trade in ganja.

Xxxx
rt

17. The quantity of “ganja” recovered is admittedly of
commercial quantity. The High Court has not recorded any
finding that the respondent-accused is not prima facie guilty of

the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit the same
offence when enlarged on bail; rather, his antecedents are
indicative that he is a regular offender. In the absence of a
recording of such satisfaction by the court, we are of the

opinion that the High Court manifestly erred in enlarging the
respondent-accused on bail.

17. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087, that the

accused cannot be released on pre-arrest bail relying upon the

judgment in Tofan Singh (supra). It was observed:

“4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the
respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected
from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on
the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused,
Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court
in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1.

xxxxx

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:12544

8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take
advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil
Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail
application or at the time of final hearing after the conclusion of the

.

trial.

9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really
warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell
into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.”

(Emphasis supplied)

18. These judgments were followed by this Court in

of
Rajesh Kumar v. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 458 of 2025, decided on

25.3.2025, and it was held that the pre-arrest bail can be denied to
rt
a person named by the co-accused to enable the police to

interrogate the petitioner. An SLP No. 55547 of 2025 titled Rajesh

Kumar Vs. State of H.P. against this order was withdrawn on

21.4.2025. It was held by this Court in Jatinder Pal Singh vs. State of

HP 2025:HHC:20446 that a person named by the co-accused is

not entitled to pre-arrest bail. This order was upheld by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jatinder Pal Singh vs. State of HP,

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9629/2025 decided on

10.07.2025.

19. Thus, the submission that the statement made by the

co-accused is inadmissible and the petitioner is entitled to pre-

arrest bail cannot be accepted.

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
13

2026:HHC:12544

20. In the present case, the police have relied upon the

financial transaction between the informant, the co-accused,

.

and the petitioner’s father, who claimed that the petitioner was

operating his account, and the recovery of the passport at the

petitioner’s instance, to show his involvement. Therefore, it is

not correct to say that the petitioner is being arrayed as an

of
accused based on a statement made by the co-accused.

21. The status report shows that the petitioner is to be
rt
interrogated. The petitioner had obtained pre-arrest bail and had

not co-operated with the investigation. The petitioner is involved

in an economic offence, and his custodial interrogation is

necessary to proceed further. It was laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 that

where custodial interrogation is required, pre-arrest bail should

not be granted. It was observed:

“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-
ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of
the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a
suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring much useful information and also materials
which would have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows
that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:12544

order during the time he is interrogated. Very often,
interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere
ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is
fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to

.

third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for such
an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal
cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police

Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible
manner and that those entrusted with the task of
disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as

of
offender”

22. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in

Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032,
rt
wherein it was observed: –

“13. One of the significant factors in determining this question
would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt,
custodial interrogation is more effective to question a suspect.

The cocoon of protection afforded by a bail order insulates the
suspect, and he could thwart interrogation, reducing it to futile
rituals. But it must also be kept in mind that while interrogation

of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime
solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced

out.”

23. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of

pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigations. It was observed:

“83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may
frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused
and in collecting useful information, and also the materials
which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation
would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the
order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in
economic offences, would definitely hamper the effective
investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been
collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:12544

considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view
that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.”

24. It was submitted that there are discrepancies in the

.

prosecution’s case because the money was paid to the co-accused

before the informant had met her. This submission will not help

the petitioner. The Court has to see a prima facie case while

deciding the bail petition, and it is impermissible to conduct a

of
mini-trial at this stage. Suffice it to say that the police have

collected sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the
rt
commission of the crime, and the effect of the contradiction

would be seen at the time of the trial.

25. No other point was urged.

26. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it

is dismissed.

27. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the

disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on

the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
21st April, 2026
(Chander)

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:26 :::CIS