CRM-M-32510-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 CRM-M-32510-2026 Date of decision: 7th July, 2026 Navdeep(minor) through his father ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- . Through the instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 352 dated 30.04.2026 registered under Sections 351(2), 191(3), 191(2), 190, 118(1), 126 and 115 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Offence under Sections 115(2), 118(2) and 109 of BNS were added later on) at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa District Sirsa. 2. Vide order dated 02.06.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner was released on interim bail and was directed to join investigation. 3. Learned State counsel filed status report dated 06.07.2026. The same is taken on record. He further, on instructions, states that the petitioner joined the investigation on 05.06.2026. However, it is, submitted that he has not co-operated with the Investigating Officer. His custodial interrogation is required. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 4. The petitioner joined investigation on 05.06.2026. So far as the PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.08 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32510-2026 -2- contention as raised by learned State counsel qua allegation of non-cooperation is concerned, this Court does not find any compelling ground to justify custodial interrogation of the petitioner due to that reason. Since the well settled proposition of law is that once an accused joined the investigation, then only because of the reason that nothing incriminating could be discovered or no recovery was got effected from him, would not mean that there is non- cooperation on the part of the accused. Reliance in this context can be placed upon the observation as made in Santosh versus State of Maharashtra (2017) 9 SCC 714 and Jugraj Singh versus State of Punjab, SLP No.9190 of 2025. The purpose of joining investigation is to make oneself available to the investigating agency and to respond to lawful queries and not to compulsorily divulge self-incriminating information. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner in appearing before the Investigating Officer and responding to the investigation, satisfies the legal standard of cooperation. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is also not required. It is also well settled that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction. As such, a case is made out for allowing the present petition. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 02.06.2026, granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (analogous to Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 7th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.08 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document