Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 02.12.2025 vs Of on 12 December, 2025
2025:HHC:43251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 2818 of 2025
.
Reserved on: 02.12.2025
Date of Decision: 12.12.2025.
Asutosh Kumar Chandravansi ...Petitioner
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
rt
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr Bhupinder Singh Ahuja.
For the Respondent : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 05 of 2025, dated 29.08.2025, registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 314, 316(5), 318(4), 344, and 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and 13(1) (a) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 22025:HHC:43251
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid FIR. The petitioner joined the investigation .
in compliance with the notice issued under Section 35(3) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023. The petitioner's services have been suspended. All the records are in the custody of the bank. The petitioner met with an accident on 14.07.2025.
of His legs are fractured, and he can only walk with the help of a walker on a straight road. The investigation is complete, and the rt petitioner's interrogation is not required. The petitioner has roots in society, 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.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that FIR was registered by the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, stating that the petitioner was posted as Service Manager in the State Bank of India, Kotkhai. The bank verified the currency chest and found that ₹75,00,000/- were missing. The bank investigated the matter and found that there was no missing system entry, and the money was misappropriated by the service managers, who were custodians of the currency chest. The police ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:43251 registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police checked the record and the transaction statements. The petitioner .
was found indulging in online gaming, and the record from the gaming website was seized. ₹74,97,900/- were deposited in the accounts of the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner had also confessed to the misappropriation of the amount in the internal of enquiry of the Bank. The disputed and specimen signatures were sent to FSL and were found to be written by one person. The rt investigation is continuing. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a serious offence which is punishable with life imprisonment. There is sufficient material against the petitioner.
He has misappropriated the public money. The recovery of ₹75,00,000/- has to be made from the petitioner. He has not produced any money by claiming that the money was spent on online gaming. This fact is yet to be verified. He would influence the witnesses if released on bail. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr Bhupender Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 42025:HHC:43251
5. Mr Bhupender Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was .
falsely implicated. The investigation is complete, and the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner is a respectable person in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The pretrial detention cannot be used to punish a of person. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the rt judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. Versus State of Punjab 1980 STPL 1490 SC, Sanjay Chandra versus CBI 2011 STPL 32671 SC and Rohit Chauhan versus State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 STPL 3224 HP in support of his submission.
6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner has misappropriated a huge amount of public money, which is yet to be recovered. The investigation is continuing, and the plea taken by the petitioner that he had spent the money on online gaming is yet to be verified. Releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage will hamper the investigation. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 52025:HHC:43251
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the records of the case .
carefully.
8. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) of 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 rt extraordinary and should be sparingly exercised. 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 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."
9. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v.
State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held:
::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 62025:HHC:43251 "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 interim rt 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."
10. 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, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:43251 discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."
.
11. 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 the view that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case, of and the presumption of innocence cannot be a reason to grant bail. It was observed at page 501:
rt "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 [CBI v. 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 the public/State and other similar considerations. It has ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:43251 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 reasonable doubt." (emphasis in original and supplied) of
23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for the grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations that the court should keep in mind while considering the plea rt 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.
12. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. The status report shows that the petitioner was posted as a Service manager in the bank from where the money was misappropriated. He had also confessed to the misappropriation during the internal enquiry conducted by the Bank. The police checked the bank account of the petitioner and his wife and found that ₹74,97,900/- was deposited in different accounts. These allegations, prima facie, show the petitioner's involvement in the commission of a crime.
::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 92025:HHC:43251
14. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493: 2025 .
SCC OnLine SC 488 that the pre-arrest bail should not be granted to a person involved in corruption. It was observed at page 501:
"24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure a corruption-free society, then the courts should not of hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over rt and the charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant accused of indulging in corruption.
25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind, and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from the truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned:
"Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long." In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation, has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day-to-day life, all over the world, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations.
26. If even a fraction of what was the vox populi about the magnitude of corruption is true, then it would not be far removed from the truth that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:43251 to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably, it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a .
menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.
27. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, this Court held that corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and quoted with approval its judgment in of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 737 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 187 and held as under : (Manoj Narula v. Union of India, rt (2014) 9 SCC 1], SCC pp. 25-26, para 16) "16. ... '26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrow of governance.' [Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 737 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 187], SCC pp. 654-55, para
26)" (emphasis supplied)
28. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666, this Court held as under : (SCC p. 100, para 68) "68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, but it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins, all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:43251 and fraternity, which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and .
worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption." (emphasis supplied)
29. In K.C. Sareen v. CBI, (2001) 6 SCC 584: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1186], this Court observed thus: (SCC p. 589, para 12) "12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling with even the institutions created for the of protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong rt legislative, executive, as well as judicial exercises, the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity."(emphasis supplied)
30. While approving the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682: (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42: (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36, rendered by another Constitution Bench in Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench of this Court, dealing with rampant corruption, observed as under: (SCC pp. 26-27, paras 17-18) "17. Recently, in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36, the Constitution Bench, speaking through R.M. Lodha, C.J., while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which was inserted by Act 45 of 2003, as unconstitutional, has opined that :
(SCC pp. 725-26, para 59) '59. It seems to us that the classification which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in the government service is not permissible under Article 14, as it defeats the purpose of finding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound differentiation between ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:43251 corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of .
public power. The corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence of under the PC Act, 1988.' And thereafter, the larger Bench further said: (SCC p. 726, para 60) rt '60. Corruption is an enemy of the nation, and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988. It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6-A because the goal of law in the PC Act, 1988, is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand, and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences.' And again : (SCC pp. 730-31, paras 71-72) '71. The Office of Public Power cannot be the workshop of personal gain. The probity in public life is of great importance. How can two public servants against whom there are allegations of corruption of graft, or bribe-taking or criminal misconduct under the PC Act, 1988 can be made to be treated differently because one happens to be a junior officer and the other a senior decision maker?
72. Corruption is an enemy of the nation, and tracking down a corrupt public servant, however high he may be, and punishing such a person is a ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:43251 necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of a public servant does not qualify such a public servant from exemption from equal .
treatment. The decision-making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crimedoers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation.'
18. From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as noonday that corruption has the potential to destroy many a progressive aspect, and it has acted as the of formidable enemy of the nation." (emphasis supplied)
31. In Neera Yadav v. CBI, (2017) 8 SCC 757: (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) rt 515], this Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 784-85, paras 59-
61) "59. Every country feels a constant longing for good governance, righteous use of power and transparency in administration. Corruption is no longer a moral issue as it is linked with the search for wholesome governance and society's need for reassurance that the system functions fairly, free from corruption and nepotism. Corruption has spread its tentacles across almost all the key areas of the State, and it is an impediment to the growth of investment and development of the country. If the conduct of administrative authorities is righteous and duties are performed in good faith with the vigilance and awareness that they are public trustees of people's rights, the issue of lack of accountability would themselves fade into insignificance.
60. To state the ubiquity of corruption, we may refer to the oft-quoted words of Kautilya, which read as under:
'Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey or the poison that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at least, a bit of the king's revenue. Just as fish moving under water cannot possibly be found out ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:43251 either as drinking or not drinking water, so government servants employed in the government work cannot be found out (while) taking money (for .
themselves).
It is possible to mark the movements of birds flying high up in the sky, but it is not so possible to ascertain the movement of government servants of hidden purpose.' [Ref: Kautilya's Arthasastra by R. Shamasastry, 2nd Edn., p. 77] of As pointed out by Paul H. Douglas in his book on "Ethics of Government", 'corruption was rife in British public life till a hundred years ago and in the USA till the beginning of this century. Nor can it be claimed that it has been rt altogether eliminated anywhere.' (Ref: Santhanam Committee Report, 1962: Para 2.3)
61. Tackling corruption is going to be a priority task for the Government. The Government has been making constant efforts to deal with the problem of corruption. However, the constant legislative reforms and strict judicial actions have still not been able to completely uproot the deeply rooted evil of corruption. This is the area where the Government needs to be seen taking unrelenting, stern and uncompromising steps. Leaders should think of introducing good and effective leadership at the helm of affairs; only then benefits of liberalisation and various programmes, welfare schemes and programmes reach the masses. Lack of awareness and supine attitude of the public has all along been found to be to the advantage of the corrupt. Due to the uncontrolled spread of consumerism and a fall in moral values, corruption has taken deep root in society. What is needed is a reawakening and recommitment to the basic values of tradition rooted in ancient and external wisdom. Unless people rise against bribery and corruption, society can never be rid of this disease. The people can collectively put off this evil by ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:43251 resisting corruption by any person, however high he or she may be."
32. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that .
the High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein."
15. In the present case, the petitioner was holding the post of Service Manager in the bank. He was responsible for keeping the public money, but he misappropriated it and claimed of that he had spent it on online gaming. The truthfulness of such a claim is yet to be verified. The police are yet to recover the money;
rt therefore, the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is not justified.
16. 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:43251 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 offender"
17. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032, of wherein it was observed: -
"13. One of the significant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation.
rt 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."
18. 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 considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail."::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 17
2025:HHC:43251
19. It was submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, and the petitioner is entitled to bail.
.
This submission is only stated to be rejected. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529 that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted because the charge sheet has been filed or the of custodial interrogation is not required. It was observed at page 397: rt
10. It may be true, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1, that the charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the investigating officer does not require Respondent 1 for custodial interrogation for further investigation.
11. Be that as it may, even assuming it is a case where Respondent 1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
20. The judgments cited at the bar deal with the principle of pre-arrest bail in general cases; however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the principle of bail in corruption cases specifically in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra), and it is not necessary to cite the earlier judgments dealing with general principles of law.
21. No other point was urged.
::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS 182025:HHC:43251
22. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the present petition .
fails, and it is dismissed.
23. The observations made heretofore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.
of
rt (Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
12th December, 2025
(Nikita)
::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 20:51:48 :::CIS