Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Industrialist in Intimidation Case [Read Order]

Himachal: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted pre-arrest bail to an industrialist accused of intimidating a pollution control officer, holding that the allegations do not constitute stalking under the new criminal law.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla delivered the judgment on August 6, 2025, in the matter of Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of Himachal Pradesh, emphasizing that custodial interrogation was not required in this case.

The court addressed Cr. MP (M) No. 1257 of 2025 filed by Krishan Kumar Kasana, proprietor of M/s K.K. Enterprises, who sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 107 of 2025 registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan. The case was filed under Sections 221, 224, 351(2), and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The FIR was registered on April 23, 2025, based on a complaint by a Regional Officer of the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had tried to intimidate him and attempted to hit his vehicle on October 7, 2024, at a lonely place between Baddi and Shimla. The court noted: “The petitioner made videos of the informant’s wife and took her photographs. He allegedly tried to compel the informant to grant him undue favours.”

The petitioner contended that he was a law-abiding citizen and that the allegations were false. His counsel argued that the FIR was filed as a “counterblast” to complaints he had made against the informant regarding demands for bribes from various persons.

Justice Kainthla examined the allegations against the definition of stalking under Section 78 of BNS, which covers following a woman and contacting her to foster personal interaction despite clear indication of disinterest, or monitoring her use of internet and electronic communication.

The court observed: “In the present case, the allegations in the complaint do not show that the petitioner had followed the informant’s wife or contacted her to foster personal interaction. The only allegation is that the petitioner had taken photographs of the informant’s wife. Prima facie, these allegations do not satisfy the definition of stalking.”

Analyzing the call detail records presented by the police, Justice Kainthla found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The court noted: “The status report shows that the informant was found at SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereas the location of the petitioner was found at Sheetla Mata Shisma New Gurudwara Kharad and SAS Nagar, Punjab… Thus, the call detail record does not corroborate the allegations made in the FIR.”

The court emphasized the Supreme Court’s guidance on anticipatory bail, citing P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that “the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly” and granted “only in exceptional cases.”

Despite the prosecution’s argument that releasing the petitioner would hamper the investigation, and the complainant’s submission that it would endanger the informant’s life, Justice Kainthla found that the petitioner had already joined the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

The court concluded: “The status report does not show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody.”

Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karan Sharma, appeared for the petitioner, while Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, represented the state, and Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt appeared for the informant.

Case Title: Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another

[Read Order]