IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. OF 2026 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 173 OF 2026]

NAVIN PATHAK @ NAVEEN PATHAK APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 22^nd December, 2025, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest.

3. Appellant figures as an accused in FIR No. 94 dated 9th October, 2018 registered with Police Station-Khilchian, District- Rural Punjab, Amritsar. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents.

J D A a T te IN : 2 D 0 E 2 R 6 . K 03 A . U 12 R 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant, in terms of an earlier order Reason:

of this Court, has since joined the investigation. In such view of the matter and taking into account the nature of allegations, we are of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not necessary and that there is sufficient ground for the appellant to be admitted to an order for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest.

6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order stands set aside. 7. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested in connection with proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, he shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

8. It is made clear that in the event the appellant breaches any of the terms and conditions imposed by it, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

9. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to any police officer or to the court.

10. Also, since the investigation is yet to conclude, we direct that if the investigating officer calls upon the appellant to join the investigation, he shall do so by attending the police station.

11. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

12. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.

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

………………..……………………...J.

[DIPANKAR DATTA]

………...……………………………..J.

[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

New Delhi;

March 11, 2026.

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 173/2026 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22- 12-2025 in CRM-M No. 65057/2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

NAVIN PATHAK @ NAVEEN PATHAK Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)

IA No. 3252/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 45006/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES Date : 11-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Srithti Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Ramesh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Adv.

Mr. Sambhav Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Ria Setiya, Adv.

Ms. Kashish, Adv.

Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Nischay Chaudhary, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR Mr. Robin Singh, Adv.

Mr. Kapil Balwani, Adv. Ms. Komal Thakkar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order placed on the file.

(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)

P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)