222 CRM-M-44629-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44629-2025 Date of decision: 19.09.2025 MUNISH KUMAR ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Barjesh K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG Punjab. ..… RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.82 dated 28.03.2025 under Section 304(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Division No.5, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1). 2. On 22.08.2025, following order had been passed: - “ The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.82 dated 28.03.2025 registered under Section 304(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Division No.5, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was involved in committing theft, by way of snatching the mobile phone of the complainant, with the co-accused Shubham. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor named in the FIR. He has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co- accused Shubham. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and Puneet Sharma 2025.09.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 222 CRM-M-44629-2025 -2- it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. He further argued that co-accused Shubham had already been granted the concession of bail by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 19.09.2025. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jaswant Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. 5. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 22.08.2025 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 19.09.2025 JUDGE puneet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Puneet Sharma 2025.09.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment