##PAGE1##

109

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Criminal Misc. No. M-5954 of 2026

Date of Decision: 27.04.2026

Pardeep Kumar Sharma alias Pardeep Sharma

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.T., Chandigarh

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh Sarao, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) [Through Hybrid Mode].

Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor,

for U.T. Chandigarh/respondent.

Mr. Abhishek Narang and Mr. Hitender Atri, Advocates

for the complainant.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

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. 110

dated 01.08.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under

Section(s) 406 & 420 of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’ and Section 66D of

‘the Information Technology Act, 2000’ Police Station Mani Majra, U.T.

Chandigarh.

2. Vide order dated 03.02.2026, 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

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARjDoWiAnJ the investigation.

2026.04.27 18:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Criminal Misc. No. M-5954 of 2026 2

3. Heard.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

in compliance with order dated 03.02.2026, the petitioner has already joined

the investigation, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the

possession of petitioner. In view of above, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has requested that the order dated 03.02.2026 be made absolute.

5. The learned State counsel, along with learned counsel for

the complainant, has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. The

learned State counsel, on the instructions from SI Rajesh Kumar, has

contended that although the petitioner has joined the investigation, but he

did not cooperate, and failed to facilitate recovery of money. As per learned

State counsel, in view of above custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

necessary.

6. The record has been perused carefully.

7. 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 the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the

prosecuting agency for the recovery of incriminating

material, which may harm his interests or may amount to

defeat his right of defence, 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];

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2026.04.27 18:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Criminal Misc. No. M-5954 of 2026 3

iii) that nothing significant has to be recovered in this case

with the assistance of petitioner, as the money cannot be

treated to be a piece of evidence which may be helpful in

linking the petitioner with the commission of crime;

8. 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 03.02.2026, whereby the petitioner was

accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute.

(Surya Partap Singh)

Judge

April 27, 2026

“DK”

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2026.04.27 18:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document