Harshdeep Singh v. State of HP

arrest bail in FIR No. 358 of 2025, dated 20.11.2025, registered at Police Station Una, District Una, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103, 352, read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2

It has been asserted that the prosecution has levelled false allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in the commission of any offence. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Akash, Virender Pal Singh alias Lali Bhai, Ashu Puri (since deceased) and other persons had gone to a Hotel at Lalsinghi on 19.11.2025 at about 8.15 p.m. to celebrate the birthday of Ashu. Gurjeet Man, Purjinder alias Pindu, Parminder, Jaswinder, Harshdeep (the petitioner), Maninder, etc., also held a party in the hotel. All the people came out of the hotel into the parking after the party. Ashu cut the cake. The informant party played the music in their vehicle and danced. Gurjeet Maan, Purjinder, Parminder, Harsh, Jaswinder, Maninder and 2-3 other persons also came to the parking. Gurjeet, Purjinder and Parminder abused the informant party. Ashu Puri went towards them. Gurjeet Maan, Purjinder, Parminder, Maninder, Harsh and Jaswinder abused Ashu Puri and gave him beatings. The other persons rescued Ashu Puri, and all of them sat in the vehicle.

I have heard Mr Parveen Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr N. S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms Swethima Dogra, learned counsel for the informant.

Mr Parveen Chauhan, 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 commission of the crime. The CCTV footage shows that the petitioner was standing at a distance from Ashu Puri, and the conclusion drawn by the prosecution that the petitioner had facilitated the commission of the crime is without any basis. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court 6 may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy to kill Ashu Puri. He and Mahesh Kaushal had separated Ashu Puri from his friends. They had prevented him from boarding the vehicle after the first incident was over. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence, and he is likely to abscond if released on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate for the Informant, supported the submissions of Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. He submitted that the petitioner can be seen separating Ashu Puri from his friends. He had facilitated the shooting of Ashu Puri, and it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner has no role in the commission of the crime. The pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should not be routinely granted, especially in a heinous offence. Therefore, he prayed 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 records carefully.

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 the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

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 are considered 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.

This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held: 8

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 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 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.

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 9 gravity of the offence, the impact on society, 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.

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The status report and the CCTV footage, which were repeatedly played before the Court during the course of two days when the arguments were heard, clearly show that after the first incident was over, the members of both parties had boarded their vehicle. However, Ashu Puri did not do so because he was seen talking to Harshdeep (the petitioner) and Mahesh Kaushal. The informant specifically stated that he had asked Ashu Puri to board the vehicle, but he was talking to the petitioner and the co- accused. This prima facie shows that Ashu Puri was deliberately kept on the spot to facilitate his killing, and prima facie, the submission that the petitioner is not connected to the commission of the crime cannot be accepted.

It was submitted that the police have filed the charge sheet, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Therefore, he is entitled to bail. This submission will not help the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 10 Court in State of A.P. v. N. Sanjay, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1747, that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted because the charge sheet has been filed or the custodial interrogation is not required. It was observed at page 397: “26. In a litany of pronouncements, from Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559 and Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 to Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 17 SCC 521, the Court cautioned against elaborately discussing/detailing the evidence or rendering findings basis the same when seized with the question of considering whether or not to grant bail. Indeed, as held by us in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510: ‘11. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated by this Court through its pronouncements are illustrative and not exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns on its own facts and merits.…’ (emphasis supplied)

In Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C K, (2022) 17 SCC 391, it was held: ‘12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like Pocso, and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial 11 interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked, and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.’ (emphasis supplied)

In P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157, it was stated: ‘23. As held by this Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391, that it would be preposterous as a proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is not required, that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be required, the court is obliged to consider the entire case put up by the State, more particularly, the nature of the offence, the punishment provided in law for such offence, etc.

It is needless to say that for the purpose of custodial interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for. Whether any case for police remand is made out or not, it is for the Court concerned to look into it.

In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the view that we should not come in the way of the investigating agency at this point of time and the 12 investigation should be permitted to proceed further.’ (emphasis supplied)

This position was reiterated in Ashok Kumar vs Union Territory of Chandigarh Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9949/2023) decided on 01.03.2024 wherein it was observed:

12. There is no gainsaying that custodial interrogation is one of the effective modes of investigating into the alleged crime. It is equally true that just because custodial interrogation is not required, that by itself may also not be a ground to release an accused on anticipatory bail if the offences are of a serious nature.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail simply because a charge sheet has been filed before the Court.

In the present case, one person has lost his life, and the Police have filed the charge sheet for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. The offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Thus, the offence is heinous, and the punishment is severe. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 327 that when the punishment is severe, the person is not entitled to bail. It was observed at page 244: 13 “6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true principle around which other relevant factors must revolve. When the case is finally disposed of and a person is sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage, and the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgment and serve a sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment.

Keeping in view these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

No other point was urged. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. 2nd July, 2026 (Chander) (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge