Paramjit Kumar @ Paramjeet Kumar Dhami vs State Of Punjab

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Paramjit Kumar @ Paramjeet Kumar Dhami vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2026

                     105A



                               In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                                              Criminal Misc. No. M-12636 of 2026

                                                                        Date of Decision: 28.04.2026


                     Paramjit Kumar alias Paramjeet Kumar Dhami
                                                                                        ... Petitioner(s)

                                                           Versus

                     State of Punjab
                                                                                      ... Respondent(s)

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

                     Present:      Mr.Karanvir Singh Khehar, Mr. Prandeep Kurhar
                                   and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner(s).

                                   Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General,
                                   Punjab, for the respondent.

                                   Dr. S.K. Passi and Ms. Honey Passi, 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. 21 dated 19.02.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 108 of 'the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023' Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

2. Vide order dated 11.03.206, 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.

2026.04.28 19:24 3. I attest to the accuracy and

The learned State Counsel has filed status report. The same be integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-12636 of 2026 2 taken on record.

4. Heard.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 11.03.2026, 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 11.03.2026 be made absolute.

6. The learned State counsel, in response to above-mentioned contentions, has conceded, on the instructions from 'ASI Deepankar Singh', that the petitioner has joined investigation, and that for further investigation of this case his custodial interrogation is not required.

6. The learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the above-mentioned arguments addressed by the learned State counsel vis-a-vis learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that in the present case false information has been given by the Investigating Officer, with regard to communication between the petitioner and the deceased.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the present case, in my opinion following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:-

i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation;

ii) that it is an admitted fact that the prime accused 'Sapna' was living separately from the deceased much before the incident in question;

2026.04.28 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-12636 of 2026 3

iii) that nothing has to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

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

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

vi) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

10. 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 11.03.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute.

(Surya Partap Singh) Judge April 28, 2026 "DK"

                               Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
                               Whether reportable             : Yes/No




DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2026.04.28 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document