CRM-M-46291- IN THE H (103) KAMALPREET STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. K Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. Throu Nagarik Suraksha anticipatory bail in 109, 132, 221, 3(5 ‘BNS’) at Police S 2. Vide was released on in 3. Learn submitted that the State counsel furth -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH EET SHARMA Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for the Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) Through the instant petition under raksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B bail in case FIR No.152 dated 04.06.2 21, 3(5) and 121(1) of the Bharatiya olice Station Sohana, District SAS Nag Vide order dated 22.08.2025 passed on interim bail and was directed to jo Learned State counsel filed status the petitioner has joined investiga el further submitted that the custodial JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-46291-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA vocate with for the petitioner Punjab nder Section 482 of the Bharatiya ort ‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks 04.06.2025 registered under Sections atiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short S Nagar (Mohali). passed by this Court, the petitioner d to join investigation. status report dated 17.03.2026 and vestigation on 19.02.2026. Learned todial interrogation of the petitioner M) 2026 oner dent atiya eeks tions short ioner and rned ioner AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-46291- is required for con for disclosing iden committing the su not deserve to be a 4. Learn he has already jo Sessions Judge ha could not join the other case and w levelled against hi by anyone in this the spot but not ca that the petition de 5. This C for the parties at co 6. As d 19.02.2026. No in contention that the be stated that the b instance of non-co an accused, whi incriminating state the interim protect -2025 (O&M) 2 for conducting thorough and proper i g identity of the person who was pr the subject offence. It is, therefore, to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner on ady joined investigation. Even the dge had passed an order for joining in in the same on account of the fact t and was apprehending his arrest in t inst him are false on the face of same. n this case. The CCTV footage also not causing any injury to the police o tion deserves to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. As discussed above, the petitioner No injury has been attributed to him hat the petitioner has not cooperated t the behavior attributed to the petition cooperation, justifying denial for , while joining investigation, is g statement under the threat that the protection granted to him. The purpos oper investigation in the matter and as present with him at the time of efore, stressed that the petition does on the other hand has argued that n the Court of Learned Additional ing investigation by him, though he fact that he was involved in some st in that case. The allegations as same. No injury had been sustained e also shows him only fleeing from olice official. It is, therefore, urged ubmissions made by learned counsel itioner has joined investigation on to him. However, with regard to the erated with the investigation, it may petitioner cannot be considered as an ial for grant of pre arrest bail, since, , is not expected to make self at the State may seek withdrawal of purpose of joining investigation is to r and e of does that ional h he some s as ined from rged unsel n on o the may as an ince, self l of is to AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-46291- make oneself avai queries and not to the allegations as status report, no i CCTV footage the avoid his apprehe case, this Court i allowed. Accordi granting interim b conditions laid dow 7. Since the m is rendered infruct 17.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 3 lf available to the Investigating Agenc not to divulge self-incriminating info ns as levelled against the petitioner, t, no injury had been sustained in th ge the petitioner could be seen fleeing pprehension in another FIR, and the ourt is of the considered opinion th ccordingly, the petition is allowed an erim bail to the petitioner is made abso aid down in Section 482(2) of BNSS. the main petition has been disposed o infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:- Yes/No Agency and to respondent to lawful g information. Given the nature of tioner, the fact that even as per the in this case by anyone and in the fleeing from the spot only in order to d the circumstances peculiar to this ion that the petition deserves to be ed and the order dated 22.08.2025 e absolute, subject to compliance of NSS. osed of, pending application, if any, (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE oned:- Yes/No es/No wful re of r the n the er to this o be 2025 ce of any, AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.