104 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-29357 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 Vikram Sharma ... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Lalit Pathak, 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. 63 dated 29.01.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 420, 406 & 120B of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’ and Section(s) 24 and 10 of ‘the Emigration Act, 1983’, Police Station Krishna Gate (Thanesar), District Kurukshetra, Haryana. 2. Vide order dated 22.05.2026, 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 reply. The same be taken on record. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-29357 of 2026 2 4. Heard. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 22.05.2026, 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 22.05.2026 be made absolute. 6. The learned State counsel, on the instructions of ‘ASI Naib Singh’, has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation, but during the course of investigation he did not cooperate. According to learned State counsel the cash amount which was paid by the complainant to the petitioner is, yet, to be recovered. 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. In view of fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, in my opinion, 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 to effect 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-29357 of 2026 3 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; ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; iii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment upto two years years; iv) that as per the contents of the FIR itself, the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he had received ₹17,00,000/- from the complainant and as a guarantee for the receipt of the above-mentioned money issued a cheque. Thus, the money of complainant is secured by way of cheque and he has got remedy; v) that otherwise also, the dispute between the parties seems to be a dispute of civil nature, i.e. regarding recovery of money; vi) that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; vii) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; viii) that the investigation and trial of the case are not likely to be concluded in near future; ix) 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-29357 of 2026 4 x) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 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 22.05.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 08, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document