Hari Dutt v. State of HP

seeking regular bail in FIR No. 82 of 2026, dated 30.5.2026, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 223, 308(2), 329(3) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Police Station Sadar, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P.

It has been asserted that Anil Kumar, the informant, made a complaint against Satish Kumar and Hari Dutt, asserting that Satish Kumar conducted the interviews of various persons and extorted money from them by threatening to circulate the videos on social media. The police registered the FIR. The allegations are false. The petitioner and the co-accused were the media persons who were covering the elections as correspondents of Kriti Bhumi. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Yamunanagar, and there is no chance of his absconding. He 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 petitioner and the co-accused had visited village Panjahal on 21.05.2026. They interviewed the informant without her permission and obtained ₹11,000/-by threatening to publish her interview. The petitioner had also taken the interviews of various contesting candidates and had issued the 3 receipts of ₹11,000/-to them. Rajesh Kumar was working in his field with the help of an excavator. The petitioner video- recorded him and demanded ₹11,000/-. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police found that the petitioner had forcibly issued the receipt of ₹11,000/- after taking the interviews. The police served the notices under Section 35(3), but the petitioner failed to join the investigation. The petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation and has not even furnished the bail bonds as per the terms of the bail order passed by the Court. The petitioner would abscond in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard Mr Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel of the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner had not joined the investigation despite the directions issued by the Court. He has not even furnished the bail bonds in terms of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner is to be interrogated. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given 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, 5 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:

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: 6

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, 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 specifically mentions that the police had served notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS upon the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to join the investigation. The Court had granted a pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and directed him to join the investigation and furnish the bail bonds. However, the petitioner had failed to join the investigation and furnish the bail bonds, which shows that the petitioner is not ready to cooperate with the investigation. The police asserted that the petitioner is to be interrogated, which is not possible without associating him. Since the petitioner has not 7 cooperated with the investigation, he cannot be held entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

Consequently, the present petition fails and is dismissed.

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. 11th August, 2026 (Chander) (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge