IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Manpreet Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J (ORAL)

1. This order shall dispose of present petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.16 dated 22.01.2025 under Sections 331(6),109,324(4),191(3),190 (Section 331(6) deleted later on and Sections 118(2),115(2) and 331(7) of BNS added later on) registered at P.S Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

2. Status report by way of affidavit of Harpreet Singh, DSP, Sub Division Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda has been filed on behalf of respondent- State. In para 17 of the report, the role of the petitioner has been highlighted to whom no specific injury has been attributed. Though it has not been clarified as to whether the petitioner has joined the investigation or not, however, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions from SHO Harbans Singh, submits that the petitioner has since joined the investigation and is no longer required for further custodial interrogation.

4. Heard.

5. On 05.08.2025, following order was passed by this Court:

“ Instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.16 dated 22.01.2025 under Sections 331(6), 109, 324(4), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (later on Section 331(6) of BNS was deleted and Sections 118(2), 115(2) & 331(7) of BNS were added), registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR (supra) and he has been nominated as accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused during his custodial interrogation, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, as the same is hit by Sections 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Sections 23(1) & 23(2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Further, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner, namely Mehakdeep Singh and Jagmeet Singh @ Gaggu, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide orders dated 21.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-12255-2025 and CRM-M-8520-2025, respectively. The petitioner is having clean antecedents and he is not involved in any other case.

Notice of motion for 11.09.2025.

Keeping in view the ratio of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2010 SCC OnLine SC 137; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT Delhi 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 833, the petitioner is directed to appear before Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from today and thereafter, as directed by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be admitted to interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation/Arresting Officer and abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

If the Arresting Officer does not permit the petitioner to join the investigation, he would appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate, who would then summon the Arresting Officer and direct him to join the petitioner in the investigation, in terms of the order of this Court.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court and learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.”

6. Keeping in view the a