Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/20016/2026 of LABH SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 22 July 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.20016 of 2026 Date of Decision:-22.07.2026 Labh Singh and another …..Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- None for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.20016 of 2026 Date of Decision:-22.07.2026
Labh Singh and another …..Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- None for the petitioners.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.271 dated 31.12.2023 registered under Sections 326, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural.
2. On 10.04.2026, the following order was passed by a Coordinate Bench:- “Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners were granted interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 17.03.2026, however, the said interim bail was cancelled on 30.03.2026 after noticing that the petitioners have not joined the investigation. YAG DUTT
CRM-M No.20016 of 2026 -2-
He contends that the aforesaid averment is incorrect and as a matter of fact, the petitioners had specifically appeared before the Investigating Officer/HC Savinder Singh and had also furnished his surety/bail bonds, however, the said official demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. On refusal of the petitioners to comply with such demand of illegal gratification, the said official made the aforesaid statement that the petitioner has not joined the investigation.
Notice of motion.
Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and prays for some time to complete instructions and file reply, if so advised.
Adjourned to 16.07.2026.
Reply, if any, be filed on or before the adjourned date with copy in advance to the learned counsel opposite.
In the meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and in the event of his doing so, they shall be admitted to interim bail by the arresting officer/investigating officer on their furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer. The petitioner(s) shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) of 2023.”
3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, on instructions from Inspector Harinder Singh, SHO, Police Station Ajnala, who is present in the Court, submits that in compliance of the order dated 10.04.2026, the petitioners have duly joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required. YAG DUTT
CRM-M No.20016 of 2026 -3-
5. In view of the fact that the petitioners have duly joined investigation and keeping in view the statement given by learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 10.04.2026 is made absolute, subject to compliance of the provisions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 22, 2026
JUDGE Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT