AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 20.05.2026 AKASHDEEP SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Ms. Ramandeep Kaur Brar, Advocate for Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH . J.(Oral)

1. This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.151 dated 01.12.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 191(3), 190 [ Sections 118(2) added later on] of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural).

2. Vide order dated 21.01.2026, the petitioner was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation.

3. Heard.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 21.01.2026, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, and therefore, the order dated21.01.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, be made absolute.

5. The learned State Counsel on the instructions of ASI Harpreet Singh has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that although the petitioner has joined the investigation, but he was non-cooperative at the time of investigation. The learned State Counsel has contended that although the petitioner has joined the investigation but his custodial interrogation is required for the recovery of weapon, i.e. the baseball bat.

7. The record has been perused carefully.

8. With regard to fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:-

i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation;

ii) that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh’ [Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2026, decided on 16.02.2026] the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency in the recovery of incriminating material, which may harm his own interests or may amount to defeating his right of defence;

iii) that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Sharma v. State of Haryana’ [Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2026, decided on 09.02.2026], collection of evidence is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer, and that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate himself;

iv) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

v) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future;

vi) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if the order dated 21.01.2026 is made absolute, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

and viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if order dated

21.01.2026 is made absolute, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation/trial.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 21.01.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute.

10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)

JUDGE

20.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Y