105 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31097 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 Vikramjeet Singh ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Mr. Davneet Sangwan, 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. 318 dated 23.09.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 120-B, 406 & 420 of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’ and Section 24 of ‘the Immigration Act, 1983’, Police Station Butana, District Karnal, Haryana. 2. Vide order dated 27.05.2026, 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJjoin the investigation. 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-31097 of 2026 2 3. Heard.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 27.05.2026, 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 27.05.2026 be made absolute. 5. The learned State counsel, on the instructions of ‘ASI Sandeep Kumar’, has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation, but during the course of investigation he did not cooperate, and that the money which was received by him has not been returned. As per learned State counsel in view of above custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. In view of fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, 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 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] the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency in effecting recovery of incriminating material, which may harm his own interests or may defeat his right of defence; iii) that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-31097 of 2026 3 of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Sharma v. State of Haryana’ [Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2026, decided on 09.02.2026], collection of evidence is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer, and that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate himself; iv) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; v) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of above-mentioned offence is imprisonment up to seven years; vi) that the dispute between the parties seems to be a dispute of civil nature, i.e. recovery of money; vii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; viii) that admittedly the petitioner is not a travel agent; ix) that no evidence has to be collected with assistance of petitioner, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; x) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; xi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; xii) 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 xiii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Criminal Misc. No. M-31097 of 2026 4 anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 8. 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 to anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 27.05.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 17, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

105 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-31097 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 Vikramjeet Singh ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Mr. Davneet Sangwan, 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. 318 dated 23.09.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 120-B, 406 & 420 of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’ and Section 24 of ‘the Immigration Act, 1983’, Police Station Butana, District Karnal, Haryana. 2. Vide order dated 27.05.2026, 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJjoin the investigation. 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-31097 of 2026 2 3. Heard.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 27.05.2026, 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 27.05.2026 be made absolute. 5. The learned State counsel, on the instructions of ‘ASI Sandeep Kumar’, has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation, but during the course of investigation he did not cooperate, and that the money which was received by him has not been returned. As per learned State counsel in view of above custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. In view of fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, 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 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] the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency in effecting recovery of incriminating material, which may harm his own interests or may defeat his right of defence; iii) that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-31097 of 2026 3 of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Sharma v. State of Haryana’ [Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2026, decided on 09.02.2026], collection of evidence is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer, and that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate himself; iv) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; v) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of above-mentioned offence is imprisonment up to seven years; vi) that the dispute between the parties seems to be a dispute of civil nature, i.e. recovery of money; vii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; viii) that admittedly the petitioner is not a travel agent; ix) that no evidence has to be collected with assistance of petitioner, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; x) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; xi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; xii) 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 xiii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Criminal Misc. No. M-31097 of 2026 4 anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 8. 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 to anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 27.05.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 17, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document