CRM-M-24209-2025 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CRM-M-24209-2025 Date of decision: 6th August, 2025 Baljinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** 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. 10 dated 23.01.2024 registered under Sections 323, 384, 419, 420, 506, 120-B, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Khuian Sarver, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka. 2. Vide order dated 19.05.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner was released on interim bail and was directed to join investigation. 3. Learned State counsel filed status report dated 05.08.2025. The same is taken on record. Though it is stated by learned State counsel that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and as such, his custodial interrogation is required. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 4. The petitioner joined investigation on 30.05.2025.. So far as the Parveen Sharma 2025.08.08 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24209-2025 2- non 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’ and in case titled as ‘Pooran Singh vs. State of Delhi’, 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 503. 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, justifying denial 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. So far as, non recovery is concerned, that cannot be considered as ground for denial of bail to the petitioner. The co-accused Lovepreet whose case is on similar footing has been extended benefit of bail. In the considered opinion of this Court, the pretrial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 19.05.2025 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of BNSS. 5. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 6. Since the main petition has been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 6th August, 2025 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No Parveen Sharma 2025.08.08 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document