JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking his pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that F.I.R. No. 2 of 2025, dated 08.1.2025, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406 , 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) at Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner is running a business of Self-Driven Car Rental under the name and style of ‘RBEFZ Rental Cars and Bikes’. As per the prosecution, the informant supplied the cars to the petitioner, and when he demanded his cars back, the petitioner refused to return the cars. He also threatened the informant. This story is concocted and highly improbable. The petitioner is running a business, and many people are dependent upon him for their livelihood. His child was born on 12.02.2025, and he has to take care of his wife and the child. His parents are aged and dependent upon him. He is suffering from a kidney stone and has to visit the doctor. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Kangra, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a written complaint to the police stating that the petitioner had told the informant that he was running a Self-Driven Car Rental with his father and friend. The petitioner was attaching the cars to various government departments. He asked the informant to attach his vehicles to the informant’s business. The petitioner assured the informant to get the vehicles financed from the financer. He promised to pay ?15,000/- as rent for each vehicle. The informant and his father purchased two vehicles and attached them to the petitioner’s business. The petitioner paid rent for only 2-3 months. The informant demanded the vehicles on which the petitioner threatened him. The informant made the enquiries and found that no company was established by the petitioner, and no vehicle was attached to the government department. The petitioner misappropriated the informant’s vehicles. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. One vehicle belonging to Kritika was recovered. Another vehicle belonging to Madan Lal was produced by one Gurpreet Singh. The informant made the enquiries and found that no company was established by the petitioner, and no vehicle was attached to the government department. The petitioner misappropriated the informant’s vehicles. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. One vehicle belonging to Kritika was recovered. Another vehicle belonging to Madan Lal was produced by one Gurpreet Singh. The petitioner obtained the pre-arrest bail, and he joined the investigation on 19.02.2025, but thereafter he did not join the investigation. He produced one vehicle belonging to Rajesh Kumar. The Investigating Officer also seized vehicles belonging to the informant, Ajay Kumar and Chaman Lal. Five vehicles have been seized by the police. The petitioner did not join the investigation after 19.02.2025. F.I.R. No.17 of 2025, F.I.R. No. 16 of 2025 and F.I.R. No. 23 of 2025 have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is not revealing the addresses of Parveen and Virag. His custodial interrogation is required. He can dispose of the vehicles and intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Sahil Thakur and Mr Devin Kumar, Advocates learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Sahil Thakur, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He joined the investigation on 19.02.2025 but could not join the investigation thereafter because he found out about the pendency of the other F.I.R. against him. He has got recovered the vehicles and is ready to join the investigation. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner is not joining the investigation. The recovery of the vehicles is to be effected from the petitioner, and he is not revealing the addresses of other persons involved in the commission of the crime; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The recovery of the vehicles is to be effected from the petitioner, and he is not revealing the addresses of other persons involved in the commission of the crime; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed: “67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but 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 grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in 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.” 8. 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. 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.” 9. 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 discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 10. The present application has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The informant asserted that the petitioner asked him to get his vehicle attached and promised to pay the rent for the attached vehicles. The petitioner paid the rent for only two months. When the informant demanded his vehicles, the petitioner refused to return the vehicles. 11. The informant asserted that the petitioner asked him to get his vehicle attached and promised to pay the rent for the attached vehicles. The petitioner paid the rent for only two months. When the informant demanded his vehicles, the petitioner refused to return the vehicles. These averments, prima facie, show that the petitioner had made representation to the informant that his vehicles would be attached to the government department and rent would be paid to him. The vehicles were not attached to the government department, the rent was not paid, and even the vehicles were not returned by the petitioner. These allegations, prima facie, show that the petitioner made a representation to the informant without any intention to fulfil the same. The informant acted on the representation made by the petitioner; hence, a prima facie involvement of the petitioner is established for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC . 12. The complaint mentions that ten vehicles were attached to the petitioner’s company, out of which the police have only recovered five vehicles. Five vehicles are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to join the investigation, and he joined the investigation only on 19.02.2025. These circumstances prima facie support the averments made in the status report that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 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- orientated 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 many 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 be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. 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 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” 13. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032 wherein it was observed: - “13. One of the significant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation. 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 be also 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.” 14. 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 knew 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.” 15. In view of the above, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail; hence, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 16. The observation made hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.