113 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. 32516 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Yashpal ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Ms. Shabnam Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. Himanshu Sharma, 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. 18 dated 18.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 306 & 3(5) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’, Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, Haryana. 2. Vide order dated 02.06.2026, 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 reply. 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. 32516 of 2026 2 4. Heard. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 02.06.2026, 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 02.06.2026 be made absolute. 6. The learned State counsel, on the instructions of ‘ASI Bhupinder Singh’, has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation, but he did not cooperate during the course of investigation. The learned State counsel has further submitted that recovery of few of the stolen articles and cash is yet to take place and for the above said purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. 7. In response to above mentioned arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is being prosecuted on the ground the he hatched the conspiracy for the commission of offence and not for actually being involved in the commission of offence. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.06 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. 32516 of 2026 3 prosecuting agency for the recovery of incriminating material, which may harm his interests or may amount to defeating 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 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 offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; v) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of above-mentioned offence is imprisonment up to seven years; vi) that recovery of stolen property has already been effected from the possession of two co-accused, namely ‘Anshu’ and ‘Pradeep’; vii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; viii) that the role attributed to the petitioner is of co- conspirator only and nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner. Thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; ix) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; x) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.06 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. 32516 of 2026 4 likely to serve any purpose; xi) 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; and xii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 10. 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 02.06.2026, 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