110 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-32831 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 Gurpreet Kaur alias Navya ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Jasdeep Singh Walia and Mr. Akamjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocates, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, 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. 153 dated 11.05.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 108, & 308(2) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’, Police Station Patran, District Patiala, Punjab. 2. Vide order dated 03.06.2026, 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. Heard. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 03.06.2026, the petitioner has already joined DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.09 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-32831 of 2026 2 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 03.06.2026 be made absolute. 5. The learned State counsel has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation, but during the course of investigation she did not cooperate, and that inquiries with regard to details of other cases, pending against the petitioner, and the source of video are to be made. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. 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 09.02.2026], collection of evidence is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer, and that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate himself; DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.09 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-32831 of 2026 3 iv) that the petitioner, being female, deserves a considerate view; v) that there is delay in lodging the FIR, as death of ‘Ram Nath @Bhilla’ (the deceased) had taken place on 15.04.2026, but the FIR in question was lodged on 11.05.2026; vi) that although the issue with regard to blackmailing seems to have been shared by the deceased, with the complainant, prior to 15.04.2026, but for 25 days neither the complainant informed the police about the above- mentioned issue, nor he informed the family members of deceased, who are not coming forward to file any complaint against the petitioner; vii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner, is the statement of ‘Fateh Singh’ (a witness); viii) that as conceded by the Investigating Officer, the mobile phone carrying obscene clips is yet to be forwarded to FSL for examination; ix) that there is nothing on record to show that there was any kind of abetment to commit suicide by the petitioner; x) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; xi) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.09 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-32831 of 2026 4 xii) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; xiii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; xiv) 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 xv) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 8. 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 03.06.2026, 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 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document