104 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-29784 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 Antima ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate for the petitioner(s) [Through Hybrid Mode]. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate for the complainant. 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. 127 dated 16.09.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 420 and 120-B of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur, Punjab. 2. Vide order dated 26.05.2026, 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. Heard. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 20:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-29784 of 2026 2 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 26.05.2026, 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 26.05.2026 be made absolute. 5. The learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation, and that for further investigation of this case her custodial interrogation is not required. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the above-mentioned stand of the State, as well as of learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that in the present case ₹8,82,000/- was paid by the complainant to the petitioner, and that during the course of investigation not even a single penny has been 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 in effecting recovery of incriminating material, which may harm her own interests or may DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 20:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-29784 of 2026 3 defeat her 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 offence is imprisonment upto seven years; vi) that being a female, the petitioner deserves a lenient view; vii) that prima facie, the dispute between the parties seems to be the dispute of civil nature, i.e. recovery of money; viii) that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; ix) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; x) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; xi) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; xii) 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 2026.07.10 20:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-29784 of 2026 4 xiii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 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 26.05.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 10, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 20:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document