CRM-M-28434-2026 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRM-M-28434-2026 Decided on : 22.07.2026 Yousaf Masih alias Yusaf . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Yousaf Masih alias Yusaf, aged 56 years 0007 22.04.2026 S. 7 of PC Act, 1988, as amended by PC (Amendment) Act, 2018 Vigilance Bureau Range Amritsar Amritsar 2. Allegations against the petitioner are that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.16,000/- on 29.04.2025 for conducting the search of a car. Said amount was allegedly paid by the complainant, namely, Gurjit Singh, to the petitioner while sitting in the Police Station. Though GD No.18 was admittedly recorded on the same day, i.e., 29.04.2025, regarding theft of the complainant's car, the complaint alleging demand and acceptance of the aforesaid bribe came to be lodged only on 20.01.2026, i.e., after a delay of JAWALA RAM 2026.07.23 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28434-2026 - 2 - about nine months. 3. On the previous date of hearing, i.e., 07.07.2026, learned State counsel produced before this Court the video recording allegedly made by the complainant through a hidden pen camera, whereupon the following order was passed:- “Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab *** Status report by way of an affidavit of Sh. Sharanjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Unit Gurdaspur, on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed in the Court today. The same is taken on record. A video has been seen on the laptop in the Chamber by this Court in the presence of learned State counsel and learned counsel for the petitioner. The date appearing in the video is of 23.11.2023 and recording was made by the complainant with Pen Camera. Let it be confirmed by the State as to why the date appearing in the visuals is of November 2023. Notice of motion. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjaba, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- State. List again on 22.07.2026. Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing and joining of investigation shall be considered after having response from the State. To be shown in the urgent list.” 4. Today, in compliance to the order dated 07.07.2026, learned State counsel has filed the additional affidavit dated 21.07.2026, of Sharanjit Singh, PPS, DSP, Vigilance Breau, Unit Gurdaspur, on behalf of the respondent – State, in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. JAWALA RAM 2026.07.23 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28434-2026 - 3 - A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Para No.3 of the aforesaid additional affidavit reads as under:- “3. That in compliance with the order dated 07.07.2026, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of the complainant Gurjit Singh for the verification of the facts as to why the date appearing in the visuals of video of the petitioner accepting the bribe from the complainant, is of November 2023. In his aforesaid statement, the complainant has stated that he had purchased the pen camera, used for recording the video in question of the petitioner, from abroad Canada but he is not possession of any receipt, or purchased bill (invoice) of that pen camera. He has further stated that regarding the date of 06.11.2023 appearing in the video recorded by him, he wants to explain that he only have knowledge about making videos in his pen camera but he has no knowledge as to how the date and time is set, or to changed in the recording. He has further stated that the video in question was recorded by him in his personal pen camera on 29.04.2025 and he has already presented the certificate u/s 63 (4) (c) before the investigating officer. The copy/true translation of the aforesaid statement of the complainant is attached herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court as Annexure R-1/T. Present additional affidavit is being submitted by the deponent for the kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court. The deponent undertakes to file detailed reply/additional affidavit as per need and as per further order of this Hon’ble Court.” 6. Heard. 7. Upon reconsideration of the issue noticed in the order dated 07.07.2026, this Court finds that the explanation furnished by the State in the additional affidavit is not wholly satisfactory. Explanation sought to be given is that the complainant was not conversant with the operation of the pen camera, which he had allegedly purchased from Canada, and, therefore, did not know how to set or change the date and time appearing in the JAWALA RAM 2026.07.23 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28434-2026 - 4 - recording. In response to the aforesaid observations, learned State counsel submits that the complainant had merely used the pen camera for recording the video and had neither verified nor altered the date and time settings before making the recording. 8. Be that as it may, keeping in view the aforesaid doubt regarding the date reflected in the video recording, the explanation furnished by the complainant, coupled with the fact that the complaint alleging demand and acceptance of bribe was lodged after a delay of about nine months, this Court does not find any substantial reason to subject the petitioner to custodial interrogation. However, if during the course of trial the prosecution is able to satisfactorily explain and establish the authenticity and relevance of the video recording by leading cogent evidence, it shall always be open to the prosecution to prove the allegations against the accused-petitioner in accordance with law. This Court is further of the view that the material sought to be relied upon by the prosecution is already in its possession and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary. However, petitioner shall be bound to join the investigation and extend full cooperation to the Investigating Agency. 9. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to join the investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of JAWALA RAM 2026.07.23 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28434-2026 - 5 - the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 10. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. 11. With the directions issued here above, present petition stands disposed of. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 22, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.23 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document