CRM-M No.21869 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207/2 CRM-M No.21869 of 2026 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Riya Garg @ Priya Garg ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paras Jagga, Advocate, for the complainant. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has joined investigation on 13.05.2026. Learned State counsel has submitted that challan has also been presented in this case. However, it is submitted by her that since the petitioner and the co- accused Naresh Garg have not got recovered the jewellery taken from the complainant, therefore, their custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of recovery of said gold jewellery/articles and supplementary challan will be filed on such recovery. MANJU 2026.07.22 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.21869 of 2026 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the complainant has also placed on record a copy of settlement/agreement shown to be executed by Gagandeep Sharma, co-accused and the complainant before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in a bail petition filed by him showing that he had recorded in his statement that all the gold articles were lying with the present petitioner and co-accused Naresh Garg and that he is ready to give a statement before the learned trial in this regard. He has insisted that this fact is sufficient to show that the gold ornaments are with the petitioner and as she has not got it recovered, hence, her custodial interrogation is required and the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since even challan stands presented, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required and hence the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 5. The petitioner has joined investigation. The veracity of the statement recorded by the co-accused Gagandeep Sharma in the settlement/agreement to the effect that the gold articles in dispute are lying with the petitioner and co-accused Naresh Garg, has to be tested during trial. Even challan stands presented. It is well settled proposition of law that the criminal law process, especially while deciding applications for bail, should not be used for recovery of gold MANJU 2026.07.22 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.21869 of 2026 -3- jewellery/articles and rather it should be based on merits of the case. Reference can also be made to Dilip Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 585 wherein, it was observed by this Court that a criminal Court exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as recovery agent to realize dues of complainant/or for recovery, without there being any trial. 6. In view of this position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be denied bail only because of the fact that the gold jewellery/articles has not been recovered by her. Given the nature of the allegations, the pre trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. As such, without commenting on the merits of the case and in the circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner makes a case for release on pre arrest bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 21.04.2026 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute subject to the compliance of the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. (MANISHA BATRA) 21.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.22 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh