CRA-S No.1011 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 CRA-S No.1011 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision :13.07.2026 Lavanya ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr.Ajay Vijarania, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Sharandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Sinhmar, Advocate the respondent No.2. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who has been prosecuted as an accused, in a case arising out of FIR No.275 dated 17.12.2025, Police Station Industrial Area, Bhiwani. The above-mentioned FIR has been lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, 190, 191(2), 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter being referred to as SC & ST Act. The application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge under SC & ST Act, Bhiwani on 06.01.2026. Aggrieved of the above-mentioned order this appeal has been preferred. 2. Vide order dated 06.04.2026, the appellant was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bonds to the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S No.1011 of 2026 (O&M) 2 satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the appellant shall join the investigation. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in compliance with order dated 06.04.2026, the appellant has already joined the investigation. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in the present case custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required, and therefore, by accepting the instant appeal, the order dated 06.04.2026, whereby the appellant was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, be made absolute. 4. On the instructions of ASI Narender Kumar, the learned State counsel has submitted that although appellant has joined the investigation, but at the time of investigation his attitude was non-co-operative. According to the learned State counsel the identity of other assailants who were involved in the commission of offence was not disclosed by the appellant, and that the punch, which was used for inflicting injury, has not been got recovered. According to learned State counsel for further investigation of the case, custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary. 5. In response to above mentioned arguments, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that father of the appellant has already been arrested by the police and interrogated, but names of other co-accused were not inquired from him nor the weapon of offence was recovered with his assistance. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. 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:- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S No.1011 of 2026 (O&M) 3 i) that the appellant 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 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 appellant is a young boy of 18 years; v) that the allegations contained in the FIR with regard to use of castiest slur by the appellant are not specific and the actual word used have not been detailed in the FIR; vi) that the allegation with regard to castiest slur by the assailants are vague and inconclusive, as it has not been detailed which of the assailant had made what type of castiest remark at the time of commission of offence; vii) that the appellant has clean antecedent; viii) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; ix) that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not likely to produce a fruitful result; x) that there is nothing on record to show that if the order dated 06.04.2026 is made absolute, the appellant is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and xi) that there is nothing on record to show that if order dated 06.04.2026 is made absolute, the appellant will not participate/cooperate in the investigation/trial. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S No.1011 of 2026 (O&M) 4 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the appellant has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the appellant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the present appeal is hereby allowed and the order dated 06.04.2026, whereby the appellant was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document