102 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-29825 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 Savita ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Najim Khilluka, 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. 128 dated 14.04.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 190, 191(3), 109, 351(3) & 61(2) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Gadpuri, District Palwal, Haryana. 2. Vide order dated 27.05.2026, 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. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-29825 of 2026 2 3. The learned State Counsel has filed reply. The same be taken on record. 4. Heard. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 27.05.2026, 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 27.05.2026 be made absolute. 6. The learned State counsel being assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the instructions of ‘ASI Pardeep’, has submitted that although the petitioner has joined the investigation, but during the course of investigation she did not cooperate, and that the details of other assailants, who were involved in the incident, have not been disclosed by the petitioner. As per learned State counsel in view of above custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioner had even filed a complaint against the complainant, but during the course of investigation the FIR lodged by the petitioner has been found to be false. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-29825 of 2026 3 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 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 petitioner, being a female, deserves a considerate view; v) that there is no allegation that the petitioner used any weapon or that anything has to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; 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 detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; ix) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-29825 of 2026 4 x) 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 xi) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate+ in the investigation. 10. 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 27.05.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 17, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document