Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49865 (PNJ)

VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/22621/2025 · 2025-07-25

Sanjay Vashisth

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-22621-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 249 CRM-M-22621-2025 Decided on:25.07.2025 Vinod Kumar …...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bareen Pratap Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station Vinod Kumar 22 21.01.2025 21(c),27A,25 ,29 of NDPS Act Special Task Force, SAS Nagar (PS ANTF, Border Range Amritsar) 2. While issuing notice of motion on 29.04.2025, petitioner was directed to join the investigation, and arrest of the petitioner was stayed until the next date of hearing, i.e., 17.07.2025. Thereafter, on 17.07.2025, the matter was adjourned to 23.07.2025. On 23.07.2025, learned State Counsel informed the Court that although the petitioner had RASHMI 2025.07.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22621-2025 2 joined the investigation, he did not cooperate during the course of the same. In view of this, the following order was passed: “1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the interim direction dated 29.04.2025 passed by this Court, petitioner has already joined the investigation and fully cooperated. 2. Controverting the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that although the petitioner has appeared to join the investigation, he has not fully cooperated with the Investigating Officer. It is specifically pointed out that, despite being asked, petitioner failed to hand over the mobile phone along with the SIM card that he was using, which is essential for the purpose of investigation. 3. In view of the conduct of the petitioner, as alleged by learned State counsel, this Court was inclined to dismiss the present petition. However, upon the assurance given by counsel for the petitioner that mobile phone along with the SIM card used by the petitioner will be handed over to the Investigating Officer within a period of 24 hours, matter is deferred for hearing to 25.07.2025, limited to the said purpose. 4.To be taken up as the first case of the day. 3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has again joined the investigation and has handed over his mobile phone along with the SIM card to the Investigating Officer. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, confirms the aforesaid fact and submits that as of now custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. 4. In view of the above, this Court does not find any substantial reason to subject the petitioner to the custodial interrogation. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. RASHMI 2025.07.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22621-2025 3 However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. It is further made clear that if in future petitioner is found indulged in similar kind of activities, prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the present case. 5. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 25, 2025 rashmi Whether Speaking/Reasoned:YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO RASHMI 2025.07.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document