[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shubham vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
CRM-M-70413-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104-2
CRM-M-70413-2025
Decided on: 23.04.2026
SUBHAM
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate,
for the complainant.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First
Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name & age FIR Date Section(s) Police District
of Petitioner No. Station
(s)
Subham, 143 18.10.2025 115(2), 109, 191(3), Basti Ludhiana
aged about 190, 351(3) of BNS Jodhewal
of Arms Act
2. On 15.12.2025, following order was passed:-
"1. xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter
alia, submits that as per the FIR lodged by the
complainant Aarti Sharma, incident took place on
18.10.2025 at around 2:20 p.m., during which there
was an exchange of heated words followed by a
scuffle, wherein the accused persons allegedly caused
injuries to the complainant party. It is, however,
pointed out that although, petitioner was present at the
spot, he has not been attributed any specific injury,
nor he was armed with any weapon at the time of the
incident.
3. It is further submitted that, insofar as the
role attributed to the petitioner is concerned, his
alleged presence is limited only to the initial phase of
the incident, i.e., prior to the arrival of other armed
co-accused, namely Deepak Kumar, Munish Gupta,
and Amarjit Singh, during whose arrival the alleged
incident of firing is stated to have taken place.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would serve
no useful purpose for the prosecution. Moreover,
petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation
and to fully cooperate with the investigating agency,
provided he is granted protection from arrest by this
Court.
4. Additionally, it is submitted that co-
accused namely Priya Sharma @ Sanchi and Sanjay
Sharma, have already been granted the concession of
interim anticipatory bail by this Court, vide orders
dated 12.11.2025 and 03.12.2025, passed in CRM-M-
63408-2025 and CRM-M-68166-2025 (Annexures P-
2 and P-3), respectively. Thus, it is prayed that
concession of anticipatory bail be also extended to the
petitioner in the present case.
5. Notice of motion.
6. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan,
Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the
respondent - State, and Mr. Parveen Kumar,
Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the
complainant, and files his vakalatnama in Court today,
which is taken on record.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant
submits that role of the petitioner is clearly
established from the CCTV footage, wherein present
petitioner can be seen grappling with the victim party
at the time of the incident.
8. Adjourned to 19.12.2025.
9. To be heard along with CRM-M-70363-
2025.
10. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to
join the investigation as and when required to do so
by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest,
the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail,
subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction
of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also
abide by all the conditions laid down under Section
482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2)
Cr.P.C.).
11. Besides, it is directed that petitioner
would hand over his passport to the Investigating
Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses.
Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the
fact that he does not possess any passport.
It is also directed that before leaving
country any time during trial, petitioner would seek
prior permission of the Court."
3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 15.12.2025,
passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully
co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim
anticipatory bail order.
4. Learned State counsel on instructions, confirms the said
averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation
by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and
custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated
15.12.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly,
present petition is allowed.
However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation
as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions
laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
7. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
8. However, present order would be subject to the submission
of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court
concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today.
Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does
not possess any passport.
9. It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied
with, this order would be considered as non est automatically.
10. It is further clarified that in case, any threat is issued by the
petitioner to the complainant or her family members, in any manner, it
shall be open for the prosecution and complainant to move an appropriate
application for cancellation of the present bail order.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
23.04.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
