104 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-32930 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Ramandeep Singh Saini alias Raman Saini ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Kinshu Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryanal 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. 49 dated 24.03.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 318(4) and 61(2) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’, Police Station SLF-II, District Gurugram, Haryana. 2. Vide order dated 05.06.2026, 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 05.06.2026, the petitioner has already joined DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.20 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-32930 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 05.06.2026 be made absolute. 5. The learned State counsel has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation, but during the course of investigation he did not cooperate, and that the money involved in the present case is, yet, to be recovered. In view of above, the learned State counsel has submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the present case. 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:- 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 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.20 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-32930 of 2026 3 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 commission of offence is imprisonment up to 7 years; vi) that there is a big question mark with regard to commission of cognizable offence in the fact-situation of the present case, as the contents of the FIR shows that money was invested by the complainant in ‘VB Broadband Private Limited’, and an agreement was executed between the above said company and the complainant. Since the projected profits on the invested money were not delivered by the above said company, the FIR has been lodged; vii) that the dispute between the parties prima facie seems to be dispute of civil nature, i.e. recovery of money. Therefore, there is a possibility that no criminality is attracted by the act of the petitioner; viii) that the evidence to be collected by the investigating agency is documentary in nature; ix) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; x) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; xi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.20 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-32930 of 2026 4 likely to serve any purpose; 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 xiii) 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 05.06.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 20, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.20 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document