Allowed¶33

Jagjit Singh @ Jagga v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2026CRM-M/4963/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: anticipatory bail; interim anticipatory bail made absolute; Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; FIR No. 02 dated 04.01.2026; Police Station Bilga; District Jalandhar-Rural; Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 351(3), 191(3), 190, 61(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; joined investigation; custodial interrogation not necessary; recovery of incriminating material; right of defence; tampering with evidence; influencing witnesses; Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2026 SC relied upon; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Justice Surya Partap Singh; Criminal Misc. No. M-4963 of 2026; decision dated 24.04.2026; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner; the interim anticipatory-bail order dated 29.01.2026 is made absolute. ¶33

Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner; the interim anticipatory-bail order dated 29.01.2026 is made absolute.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who joined the investigation while on interim anticipatory bail, is entitled to have the interim-bail order dated 29.01.2026 made absolute (regular anticipatory bail). +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail; the petition is allowed and the order dated 29.01.2026 granting interim anticipatory bail is made absolute.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

A relevant factor is that the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency for the recovery of incriminating material which may harm his interests or amount to defeating his right of defence, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶24

Key takeaways

Nothing significant has to be recovered in this case with the assistance of the petitioner to link him with the commission of crime.ratio¶25
There is nothing on record to show that, while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.ratio¶29
There is nothing on record to show that, while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — S. 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — First petition by accused in FIR No. 02 dated 04.01.2026, P.S. Bilga, Distt. Jalandhar-Rural, for offences u/SS. 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 351(3), 191(3), 190 & 61(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Petitioner admitted to interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.01.2026 and had joined investigation — State sought custodial interrogation alleging non-cooperation — Held: petitioner already joined investigation cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency in recovery of incriminating material which may harm his interests or defeat his right of defence (as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. A. No. 939 of 2026, decided 16.02.2026); nothing significant remains to be recovered with his assistance to link him with the crime; nothing on record shows likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, or non-participation in investigation; custodial interrogation not likely to produce a fruitful result — Petitioner held entitled to anticipatory bail; interim-bail order made absolute — Petition allowed.

¶1

105

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

Criminal Misc. No. M-4963 of 2026

¶4

Date of Decision: 24.04.2026

¶5

Jagjit Singh alias Jagga

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent(s)

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

¶11

Present: Mr. V.K.Pujara, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶12

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

¶13

Surya Partap Singh, J.

¶14

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. 02 dated 04.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 351(3), 191(3), 190 and 61(2) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar-Rural, Punjab. 2. Vide order dated 29.01.2026, 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.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶17

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.04.24 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-4963 of 2026

¶19

¶20

in compliance with order dated 29.01.2026, 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 29.01.2026 be made absolute.

¶21

The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. The learned State counsel, on the instructions from ‘ASI Jaswinder Singh’, has contended that when the petitioner was joined in the investigation he did not cooperate, and that to collect evidence further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

¶22

The record has been perused carefully.

¶23

Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the present case, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:-

¶24

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 his interests or may amount to defeat his 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];

¶25

iii) that nothing significant has to be recovered in this case with the assistance of petitioner, to link him with the commission of crime;

¶26

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.04.24 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

Criminal Misc. No. M-4963 of 2026

¶28

¶29

iv) that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

¶30

v) that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation; and

¶31

vi) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result.

¶32

Keeping in view the aforesaid, and the fact that the petitioner

¶33

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 29.01.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute.

¶34

(Surya Partap Singh) Judge

¶35

April 24, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶36

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.04.24 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jagjit Singh @ Jagga v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjit Singh @ Jagga v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Bhatti Vs State of Punjab

Yogesh Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana

Karandeep Singh @ Karan @ Lambar Vs State of Punjab

Ravi Kumar Daroga Vs State of Haryana