Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another
Date:- 06.08.2025
Case Background
The petitioner, Krishan Kumar Kasana, filed for pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 107 of 2025, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The FIR included charges under Sections 221, 224, 351(2), and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioner argued that the allegations were baseless and retaliatory, while the informant accused him of intimidation, attempted vehicular assault, and stalking.
Key Submissions
Petitioner’s Arguments
Advocate , representing the petitioner, contended that only Section 78 of BNS (pertaining to stalking) was non-bailable. He asserted that the allegations did not meet the legal criteria for stalking and emphasized the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, negating the need for custodial interrogation.
State’s Opposition
Advocate General opposed the bail plea, arguing that call detail records indicated the petitioner had been tracking the informant. The State maintained that releasing the petitioner could impede the ongoing investigation.
Informant’s Objections
Advocate, representing the informant, highlighted the petitioner’s alleged threats, attempt to hit the informant’s vehicle, and unauthorized photographing of the informant’s wife. He argued that granting bail would endanger the informant’s safety and compromise the case.
Legal Principles Applied
The court referenced several Supreme Court rulings to guide its decision. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), the Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, considering the nature of accusations and potential impact on the investigation.
The Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) judgment reiterated that anticipatory bail is not a rule but an exception, requiring cautious judicial discretion to prevent interference with justice.
In Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana (2023), the Court emphasized balancing individual liberty with public interest and the necessity of a fair investigation.
The Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab (2025) ruling clarified that the presumption of innocence alone cannot justify bail; exceptional circumstances, such as false implication, must be demonstrated.
Court’s Findings
Section 78 BNS (Stalking)
The court observed that the allegations did not prima facie satisfy the legal definition of stalking under Section 78 BNS, which requires repeated unwanted contact or monitoring. The act of photographing the informant’s wife, without further evidence of harassment, was deemed insufficient to constitute stalking.
Call Record Analysis
The call detail records placed the petitioner and informant in different locations, contradicting the claim that the petitioner had attempted to hit the informant’s vehicle. This inconsistency weakened the prosecution’s case.
Custodial Interrogation
The court noted that the petitioner had actively participated in the investigation, and the status report failed to establish a necessity for custodial interrogation.
Decision
The court granted pre-arrest bail, concluding that there was no substantial risk of the petitioner fleeing or obstructing the investigation. The observations were strictly limited to the bail proceedings and did not prejudice the merits of the case.
Conclusion
The judgment highlights the stringent standards for granting pre-arrest bail, requiring a careful assessment of evidence and legal principles. By meticulously analyzing the facts and applying established precedents, the court upheld the petitioner’s right to liberty while ensuring the integrity of the investigative process. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in balancing individual freedoms with the demands of justice.
About the Author: Neeraj Gogia, Advocate, 9891800100, specializing in criminal law, bail applications, criminal trial etc.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
© 2025 [Gogia crime briefs]. All rights reserved. Subscribe on LinkedIn
#lexeagle #gogiacrimebriefs #bail #photograph #highcourt #liberty #justice #lexeagle #stalking #call #record #interrogation