CRM-M-19582 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (205 ) HARIS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. Through the instant Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. registered under Sections 2023 (for short “BNS”) 2. Vide order dated petitioner was released on interim bail and was directed to join investigation. 3. Learned State counsel filed status report dated on instructions states that the petitioner 19582-2026 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision : 14.07.2026 Versus STATE OF HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) Through the instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. registered under Sections 305, 331(4) and 3(5) of hort “BNS”) at Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad. Vide order dated 09.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner was released on interim bail and was directed to join Learned State counsel filed status report dated on instructions states that the petitioner has joined the investigation on IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CRM-M-19582-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.31 dated 29.01.2026 305, 331(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Kotwali, District Faridabad. passed by this Court, the petitioner was released on interim bail and was directed to join Learned State counsel filed status report dated 04.07.2026 and joined the investigation on AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.15 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19582 20.06.2026 and his submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the recovery of the stolen money and he has also not cooperated in the investigation. 4. The petitioner joined investigation o recovery is concerned, mere non recovery cannot by itself be a ground for denial of bail as has also been observed by the Delhi High Court in case titled as ‘Jagdish Thakkar vs. State of Delhi’, 1992 (3) CCR 2764 case titled as ‘Pooran Singh vs. State of Delh 503. With regard to contention that the petitioner has not co the investigation, it may be stated that the behavior attributed to the petitioner cannot be considered as an instance of non justifying denial for grant of pre investigation, is not expected to make self incriminating statement under the threat that the State may seek withdrawal of the interim protection granted to him. It is well settled that the to make oneself available to the investigating agency and to respond to lawful queries and not to compulsorily divulge self information. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner in appearing before the Investigating Officer and responding to the investigation, satisfies the legal standard of cooperation. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 19582-2026 (O&M) (2) and his submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the recovery of the stolen money and he has also not cooperated in the investigation. The petitioner joined investigation on 20.06.2026. So far as the non concerned, mere non recovery cannot by itself be a ground for denial of bail as has also been observed by the Delhi High Court in case Jagdish Thakkar vs. State of Delhi’, 1992 (3) CCR 2764 Pooran Singh vs. State of Delhi’, 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) . With regard to contention that the petitioner has not co the investigation, it may be stated that the behavior attributed to the petitioner cannot be considered as an instance of non ial for grant of pre-arrest bail since, an accused, while joining investigation, is not expected to make self incriminating statement under the threat that the State may seek withdrawal of the interim protection granted to him. It is well settled that the purpose of joining investigation is to make oneself available to the investigating agency and to respond to lawful queries and not to compulsorily divulge self information. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner in appearing e the Investigating Officer and responding to the investigation, satisfies the legal standard of cooperation. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 09.04.2026 granting interim bail to the and his submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the recovery of the stolen money and he has also n 20.06.2026. So far as the non concerned, mere non recovery cannot by itself be a ground for denial of bail as has also been observed by the Delhi High Court in case Jagdish Thakkar vs. State of Delhi’, 1992 (3) CCR 2764’ and in i’, 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) . With regard to contention that the petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation, it may be stated that the behavior attributed to the petitioner cannot be considered as an instance of non-cooperation, arrest bail since, an accused, while joining investigation, is not expected to make self incriminating statement under the threat that the State may seek withdrawal of the interim protection purpose of joining investigation is to make oneself available to the investigating agency and to respond to lawful queries and not to compulsorily divulge self-incriminating information. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner in appearing e the Investigating Officer and responding to the investigation, satisfies the legal standard of cooperation. Accordingly, the present petition granting interim bail to the AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.15 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19582 petitioner is made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of BNSS. 5. Since the main petition application, if any, is rendered infructuous. 14.07.2026 Amit Sharma 19582-2026 (O&M) (3) is made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of BNSS. Since the main petition has been disposed of, application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No is made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions laid down has been disposed of, pending (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.15 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.