The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with the FIR alleging offences under Sections 221, 224, 351(2), and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, based on a complaint from an informant, a Regional Officer of the State Pollution Control Board.
The informant alleged that after taking administrative action against the petitioner’s enterprise for environmental violations, he was subjected to intimidation. Specifically, it was claimed that on 7 October 2024, the petitioner tried to hit the informant’s vehicle at a secluded location between Baddi and Shimla, followed the informant, and took photographs of the informant’s wife. According to the prosecution, call detail records placed both parties’ mobile phones at similar locations, suggesting that the petitioner followed the informant. The FIR was also allegedly a retaliatory move, as the petitioner had previously complained against the informant for alleged demands of bribes.
The State maintained that granting bail would hamper the investigation, while the informant’s objections were rooted in security concerns and the risk posed by releasing the petitioner on bail.
The Bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that, among the sections quoted, only offence under Section 78 of the BNS was non-bailable, and the informant’s allegations did not prima facie satisfy the definition of “stalking” under the section, which requires repeated attempts to foster personal interaction with a woman despite her disinterest or monitoring her electronic communications. He emphasized that there was no allegation of such contact, only that photographs were taken, which does not alone constitute stalking.
The Court also noted that while call detail records established that both parties travelled in the same general direction and vicinity, they did not corroborate the FIR claim that the petitioner attempted to hit the informant’s vehicle at the desolate location as alleged. The petitioner had already joined the investigation, and the police did not assert any need for custodial interrogation.
Based on all these factors, and in view of the Supreme Court’s clear jurisprudential mandate that pre-arrest bail should be sparingly granted only where circumstances justify it and no prejudice to the investigation appears, the Court held the case did not warrant the petitioner’s arrest. The interim order of protection made by the court on 29 May 2025 was made absolute, and anticipatory bail was granted.
Relied on:
1. P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24
2. Srikant Upadhyay vs State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282
3. Pratibha Manchanda vs State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181
4. Devinder Kumar Bansal vs State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493
5. CBI vs V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Informant: Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate.
