210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13945-2025 Date of Decision:04.08.2025 Sukhdeep Singh @ Kaka …Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Thamman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab. ***** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for issuance of a direction to the arresting officer to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in case FIR No.300 dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. While granting the concession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 12.03.2025, the following contentions were noticed by this Court and the same have been reproduced below:- “Inter alia contends that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR in question annexed as Annexure P-1 or in the application filed by M.C. Dera Bassi which led to the registration of the instant FIR; the petitioner was subsequently implicated solely based on disclosure statement of Suresh Jain, a co-accused, who HITESH 2025.08.05 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-13945-2025 -2 had personal enmity against the petitioner due to money dispute. The enmity between the petitioner and co-accused Suresh Jain culminated in an altercation between them, following it the petitioner had lodged a complaint against said Suresh Jain at Police Station Dera Bassi. It has been asserted that therefore the petitioner’s nomination in the present case as an accused is result of personal vendetta. It has still further been submitted that even as per the FIR Annexure P-1, there is no mention of any sale deed being executed by or in favour of the petitioner. ”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions and further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation may not be required. 4. Learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. 5. In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the interim order dated 12.03.2025 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 04.08.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2025.08.05 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh