207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jatinder Singh alias Jatinderjit Singh Multani alias Joti ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Date of Decision: March 18, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 18, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vishal Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner (presence marked through video-conferencing).

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.155 dated 07.12.2025, under Sections 316(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation)

Act, at Police Station City Zira, District Ferozepur.

2. On 15.01.2026, the following order was passed:

“

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner though was a travel agent of the firm, however, not related to the present case and was rightly not named in the FIR but falsely being implicated in the present case which relates to allegations specifically against one Navjeet Singh who is stated to have taken the original passport of the complainant to get a spouse visa, for which reference is made to para 3 of the FIR and it is only thus, he had withdrawn the anticipatory bail application on 14.01.2026 to surrender before the trial Court. He is not involved in any other case. He is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when required by the investigating agency and will cooperate.

Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court, Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation on or before 22.01.2026. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to compliance of conditions as enshrined under Section 482(2) BNSS. However, it is clarified that if the petitioner does not join and cooperate with the Investigating Agency as required by the Arresting/Investigating Officer, this interim order shall be deemed to have been vacated.

”

Adjourned to 05.03.2026.

3. While raising submissions in tandem with the status report by way of an affidavit dated 17.03.2026 (filed in the Court today, which is taken on record), learned State counsel (on instructions) has stated that pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2026, the petitioner has indeed joined investigation, but his custodial interrogation is required for recovery of passport of the FIR-complainant and spouse.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned counsel has argued that recovery of passport of the complainant and his spouse is yet to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that, and in case, the petitioner is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and interfere in the prosecution evidence.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record; especially in view of the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is being sought only for effecting recovery of passport of the FIR-complainant and his spouse; the interim order dated 15.01.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

6. Petition stands allowed, accordingly.

7. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

8. Liberty is reserved