Charanjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3961 P&H

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3961 P&H
Judgement Date : 29 April, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Charanjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026

                     114



                               In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                                              Criminal Misc. No. M-16291 of 2026

                                                                        Date of Decision: 29.04.2026


                     Charanjit Kaur
                                                                                        ... Petitioner(s)

                                                           Versus

                     State of Punjab
                                                                                      ... Respondent(s)

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

                     Present:      Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate
                                   for the petitioner(s) (Through Hybrid Mode].

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

                                   Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate
                                   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. 7 dated

17.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s)

351(3) and 305 of 'the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023' Police Station

Bhadson, District Patiala, Punjab.

2. Vide order dated 25.03.2026, 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

join the investigation.

3. Heard.

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

in compliance with order dated 25.03.2026, 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 25.03.2026 be made absolute.

5. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-

mentioned arguments. The learned State counsel, on the instructions from

'ASI Sukhpal Chand', has contended that although the petitioner has joined

the investigation, but he was non-cooperative, and that gold ornaments are

yet to be recovered. As per learned State counsel, in view of above-

mentioned circumstances, 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 her interests or may amount to

defeating her 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];

iii) that no significant evidence is to be recovered in this

case, with the assistance of petitioner, which may be

helpful in linking the petitioner with the commission of

crime; And

iv) that the recovery of gold ornaments can be facilitated by

giving a direction to the petitioner to join the

investigation as and when called by the Investigating

Officer;

v) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial

Magistrate; ii. that the petitioner has been implicated on

the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, 'Simran

Kaur';

vi) that the incident had taken place about two months ago

and since then, nothing has been recovered either from

possession of accused 'Parminder Singh @Johni' and

'Amit Bharti' or from 'Simran Kaur';

vii) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be

concluded in near future;

viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not

likely to serve any purpose;

ix) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely

to produce a fruitful result;

x) 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

xi) that there is nothing on record to show that while on

anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not

participate/cooperate in the investigation

9. 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 25.03.2026, whereby the petitioner was

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

(Surya Partap Singh) Judge April 29, 2026 "DK"

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