CRM-M-23946-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 CRM-M-23946-2026 Decided on: 14.07.2026 KULDEEP KUMAR …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. APS Chhibber, Advocate, for Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No.2. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.47, dated 26.03.2026, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 351(1), 191(3), 190 BNS (Section 304 BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act added later on) [erstwhile sections 323, 341, 427, 503, 148, 149 of IPC], registered at Police Station Division No.4, District Ludhiana. 2. On 30.04.2026, following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are that he gave the fist blows as well as baseball bat blows, however, the injuries were declared to be grievous in nature. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for LAVISHA 2026.07.15 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-23946-2026 2 the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to join the investigation. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. K. D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. At this stage, Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate has appeared and filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant today in the Court, which is taken on record. He, however, has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. To come up on 14.07.2026. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Agency/Officer. He shall abide by the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required to do so. (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (iii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.” 3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 30.04.2026, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Amrik Singh, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. LAVISHA 2026.07.15 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-23946-2026 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 30.04.2026, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 7. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO LAVISHA 2026.07.15 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh