104 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-23622 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Naveen Kumar ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Pratham Sethi and Ms. Sapna Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Surya Partap Singh, J. 1. This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 93 dated 30.03.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s)110 [Section(s) 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(3), 351(2) & 18(2)] of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ , Police Station Meham, District Rohtak, Haryana. 2. Vide order dated 21.05.2026, the petitioner was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation. 3. The learned State Counsel has filed status report. The same be taken on record. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.06 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-23622 of 2026 2 4. Heard. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 21.05.2026, the petitioner has already joined the investigation, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that the order dated 21.05.2026 be made absolute. 6. The learned State counsel, on the instructions of ‘SI Rampal’, has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation, but he did not cooperate during the course of investigation. According to learned State counsel, the names of co-accused have not been disclosed by the petitioner, and he refused to assist in effecting the recovery of weapon of offence. As per learned State counsel in view of above, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. With regard to fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:- i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation; ii) that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh’ [Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2026, decided on 16.02.2026] the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency in recovery of incriminating material, which may harm his own interests or may defeat his right of defence; iii) that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Sharma v. State of Haryana’ [Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2026, decided on DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.06 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-23622 of 2026 3 09.02.2026], collection of evidence is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer, and that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate himself; iv) that the benefit of interim anticipatory bail was accorded to the petitioner by the court of Sessions but the same was not extended due to alleged non-cooperation of the petitioner; v) that the investigation and trial are not likely to produce a favourable result; vi) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up will not serve any purpose; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate during trial; and viii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 21.05.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 06, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.06 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document