IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 CRM-M-34721-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:27.08.2026 Vijay Kamboj @ Vijay Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Nirmal Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Rythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.148, dated 15.05.2026, registered under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, at Police Station City-1, Abohar, District Fazilka. 2. Vide order dated 26.06.2026, passed by this Court, the petitioner was granted interim bail and was directed to join investigation. 3. Learned State counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer has submitted that though the petitioner has joined investigation on 09.07.2026 but he is not cooperating with the investigation. For the purpose getting recovery of the pesticides and for ascertaining the source from which the pesticides were procured by him, his custodial interrogation is required. 4. This Court has heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. HARJEET KAUR 2026.08.27 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34721-2026 (O&M) -2- 5. Though, it is submitted by learned State counsel that ascertaining the source from which the pesticides were procured, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, mere non recovery cannot by itself be a ground for denial of bail as has also been observed by the Delhi High Court in case titled as ‘Jagdish Thakkar vs. State of Delhi’, 1992 (3) CCR 2764’ and in case titled as ‘Pooran Singh vs. State of Delhi’, 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 503. So far as the contention that the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation is concerned, it may be stated that the behaviour attributed to the petitioner cannot be considered as an instance of non-cooperation, justifying denial for grant of pre-arrest bail since, an accused, while joining investigation, is not expected to make self- incriminating statement under the threat that the State may seek withdrawal of the interim protection granted to him. The purpose of joining investigation is to make oneself available to the Investigating Agency and to respond to lawful queries and not to divulge self-incriminating information. 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and given the nature of allegations, this Court is of the opinion that pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. As such, without commenting on merits of case, this petition is allowed and the order dated 26.06.2026 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of BNSS. 7. Since the main petition has been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.08.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.08.27 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document