No concrete evidence collected by CBI to cancel anticipatory bail: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) [India], December 25 (ANI): The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that seeking an explanation from an employee in an official capacity does not amount to abetment while confirming anticipatory bail to former Managing Director of Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (HPPCL) Harikesh Meena in the alleged abetment to suicide case of engineer Vimal Negi.
Justice Virender Singh, in a detailed 23-page order dated December 24, observed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had "failed miserably" to collect any concrete material linking Meena or other accused officers to the death of Vimal Negi, despite nearly eight months of investigation. Making absolute the interim protection earlier granted to Meena, the court said its judicial conscience was not satisfied with the submissions made by the probe agency.
The High Court specifically recorded that "even otherwise, the explanation called from deceased Vimal Negi by accused Desh Raj does not fall within the definition of abetment," while reiterating that administrative actions within an official hierarchy cannot, by themselves, be treated as criminal instigation.
Meena and then Director (Electrical) Desh Raj were accused by the deceased engineer's wife, Kiran Negi, of sustained harassment. Vimal Negi's body was recovered from the Bhakra Dam in Bilaspur district on March 18, eight days after he was reported missing on March 10. His family alleged that he was under severe mental stress due to alleged pressure and harassment by senior officials of HPPCL.
The investigation was handed over to the CBI on May 23. In a status report filed on November 26, 2025, the agency claimed that after supervision of the Pekhubella Solar Power Project was assigned to Negi on June 15, 2024, Meena and Desh Raj pressurised him and another officer, Bipan Guleria, to issue a Completion Certificate despite incomplete work. The certificate was allegedly issued on June 20, 2024, with retrospective effect from April 15, 2024.
The CBI further alleged that the humiliation, insult and harassment allegedly faced by Negi compelled him to commit suicide. It also told the court that the investigation was still ongoing and that forensic reports were awaited. Opposing anticipatory bail, the agency argued that granting such relief would shut the door on custodial interrogation and the discovery of further evidence, which would cause injustice to the deceased's family.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court noted that the CBI counsel failed to satisfactorily explain how the actions cited in the status report constituted abetment. The court reiterated that at the stage of deciding a bail application, a detailed examination of evidence is not required and that the focus must remain on the nature of allegations and the availability of the accused to face trial.
"Although a valuable life has been lost, merely on this account the applicant cannot be penalised prior to trial by denying bail," the court observed.
The High Court also noted that a co-accused had already been granted similar relief by the Supreme Court and that the allegations levelled against Meena were of a similar nature. It further observed that the investigation was still underway and that the chances of early commencement and conclusion of the trial did not appear bright.
In such circumstances, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant to judicial custody.
Accordingly, the High Court made the interim order dated April 7, 2025, absolute and directed that Harikesh Meena be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the case registered on March 19, 2025. The case was initially registered at Police Station New Shimla under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and was later taken over by the CBI.
Meena was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including full cooperation with the investigation.
The court clarified that its observations were limited to the consideration of the bail application and should not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case. (ANI)