[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
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.
The learned State Counsel has filed status report. The same be
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;
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
