IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 CRM-M-330-2025 Date of decision: March 24th, 2025 Swarn Chand .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rana, Sr.DAG, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in case FIR No.56 dated 02.12.2024 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by P.C.Act (Amendment Act) 2018, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Range Amritsar, District Amritsar, Punjab. 2. Vide order dated 22.01.2025 the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant parts of the orders 09.01.2025 and 22.01.2025 read as under:- Order dated 09.01.2025 “Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that there was no occasion for the petitioner to have demanded bribe from the complainant as he was not even posted in the circle, where the property in question was situated; it was one Raman Kumar, who was to prepare the naksha zeem of the property of the Mamta 2025.03.25 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/order CRM-M-330-2025 -2- complainant. It has still further been asserted by the learned counsel that although the prosecution is claiming that there was an audio recording between the complainant and the petitioner with respect to the demand of 717,000/- as bribe, however, even as per the audio recording, there was no specific demand made by the petitioner for bribe to get the work of the complainant executed. Rather, the petitioner, on being asked by the complainant as to what his commission would be, had categorically refused to accept any bribe from the complainant for himself. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that Raman Kumar, with whom the complainant had settled the bribe money, had been exonerated and declared innocent by the investigating agency.” Order dated 22.01.2025 “Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that it is clearly discernible from the transcript of the audio recording that there is no specific demand much less acceptance audible vis-à-vis the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is willing to join and cooperate with the investigating agency; he under to give his voice sample to the investigating agency. ” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 22.01.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4. Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He on further instructions submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 22.01.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid Mamta 2025.03.25 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/order CRM-M-330-2025 -3- down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS. March 24th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) mamta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Mamta 2025.03.25 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/order