On 07.11.2025, this Court had passed the following order: “Learned counsel contends that there is a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR and the transaction stated to have been made was way-back in the year also which has been circulated, name of the petiti not mentioned by the deceased. There is no proximity of any call details between them which would have made his case fall within the of abetment as defined under Section 45 BNS, so as to constitute the offence under Section 108 BNS, for which, reliance is placed on the judgment of Court in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others vs. State of Gurjarat, SLP (Crl.) No.7957 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024. Similarly accused Amrik Singh alias Bittu has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.09.2025, Annexure P 5. He is ready and willing to join the investigation as and ourt had passed the following order:- Learned counsel contends that there is a delay of 13 the FIR and the transaction stated to have back in the year 2020. In the video also which has been circulated, name of the petitioner is mentioned by the deceased. There is no proximity of any call details between them as also no allegation levelled which would have made his case fall within the definition of abetment as defined under Section 45 BNS, so as to nce under Section 108 BNS, for which, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others , SLP (Crl.) No.7957 of 2024, decided on 10.12.2024. Similarly circumstanced co- Amrik Singh alias Bittu has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.09.2025, Annexure P- willing to join the investigation as and PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. when required by the investigating agency and will cooperate. Notice of motion. At the asking of the Court, Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation on or before 17.11.2025. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to compliance of conditions as enshrined under Section 482 (2) BNSS. However, it is clarified that if the petitioner does not join and cooperate with the Investigating Agency as required by the Arresting/Investigating Officer, this interim order shall be deemed to have been vacated. Adjourned to 13.01.2026.” 3. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the afore- mentioned order, the petitioner has not only joined investigation but also fully cooperated with the investigating agency. He further submits that in case the investigating agency requires the petitioner to appear, he shall make himself available without demur. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer affirms the factum of joining the investigation by the petitioner and cooperating with the investigating agency. He also submits that at this stage, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. 5. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 07.11.2025 granting interim bail to him, is hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as specified under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 6. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to join and cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the present anticipatory bail granted to him. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.