IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CRM-M-2449-2025 Date of decision: 22.04.2025 Sajan @ Sajan Sahota .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Ms. Shivani Saini, Advocate for Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Deol, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') in case FIR No.163 dated 09.10.2024 under Sections 115(2), 191(3), 190, 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Cantonment, District Amritsar. 2. On 17.01.2025, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation:- “Counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the complainant is a retired official of Punjab Police and is landlord of the shop, which is occupied by the father of the petitioner as a tenant and civil litigation is already going on between the parties with regard to the possession of the said property. It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place on 30.08.2024 whereas the complainant got recorded his statement with regard to the VINAY 2025.04.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-2449-2025 alleged incident on 09.10.2024 as is clear from FIR (Annexure P-1). It is further submitted that in the meantime, the complainant manipulated the alleged injury on his head. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who is having no criminal history, is ready to join the investigation with the police.” 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was again directed to join investigation vide order dated 25.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of orders dated 17.01.2025/25.02.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 5. Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 17.01.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 22.04.2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2025.04.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment