Allowed

Mukesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Apr 2026CRM-M/5090/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought under Section 482 BNSS in an FIR under Sections 105 and 351(2) BNS. Interim bail was granted subject to joining investigation; the petitioner complied and the State confirmed he was no longer required. The interim order was made absolute with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 18.02.2026 made absolute; petitioner to continue joining investigation as required and abide by Section 482(2) BNSS conditions.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-5090-2026

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

212

¶5

CRM-M-5090-2026 Date of decision: 06.04.2026

MUKESH KUMAR

….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

¶12

Present:- M r. Ankit Joshi, Advocate f o r the petitioner. M r. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

T hrough the instant petition filed under Section 482 of th e Bharatiya Na g arik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (f o r short “BNSS”), the petitioner s seek anticipat o ry bail in case FIR No.212 da t ed 12.12.2025 registered unde r Sections 105 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya N yaya Sanhita, 2023, at Polic e Station Tibba, District Ludhiana.

¶16

O n 18.02.2026, the following or d er was passed by this Court: - “Prayer in the present pe t ition filed under Section 482 o f t h e BNSS, 2023 is for grant of a n ticipatory bail to the petitione r i n case FIR No.212 dated 12.12 . 2025 registered under Section s 105 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Polic e S tation Tibba, District Ludhiana.

¶17

GURPREET 2026.04.07 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶18

CRM-M-5090-2026

¶19

¶20

Status report filed by lear n ed State counsel in Court today , i s taken on record.

¶21

Learned counsel for th e petitioner contends that th e petitioner has been falsely imp l icated in the present case. H e argued that the petitioner has n o connection with the allege d o f fence. He further argued th a t the petitioner was not eve n present at the spot of occurre n ce and was at his job and a c e rtificate in this regard has a l so issued by the proprietor o f V arun Knitwears. He further a r gued that the said fact is als o v e rified by the investigating age n cy and finds mention at para 8 o f the status report. He further a rgued that the petitioner neve r m et the complainant as he did not know him and the allegation o f t a king Rs.5,000/- from the co m plainant is totally false an d f r ivolous. Moreover, the petition e r has clean antecedents as he i s not involved in any other case a n d no recovery is to be effecte d f r om him. Learned counsel h a s further submitted that th e petitioner is ready and willing t o join the investigation as an d w hen called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

¶22

On the other hand, learn e d State counsel while referrin g t o the status report, has opp o sed the prayer for grant o f anticipatory bail, by submittin g that the allegations levelle d a g ainst the petitioner are seriou s in nature. However, he has no t c o ntroverted the fact that the pet i tioner is a first time offender a s he is not involved in any other ca s e.

¶23

List on 05.03.2026.

¶24

In the meantime, the p etitioner is directed to joi n i n vestigation within a week from today and would appear as an d w hen required by the Investiga t ing Officer and cooperate wit h t h e Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall b e admitted to interim bail on furni s hing of bail/surety bonds to th e s a tisfaction of Arresting/Invest i gating Officer. The petitione r s h all also abide by the conditi o ns as envisaged under Sectio n 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.”

¶25

GURPREET 2026.04.07 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶26

CRM-M-5090-2026 3

¶27

L earned counsel for the petition e r submits that in compliance o f the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by this Co u rt, the petitioner has joined th e investigation.

¶28

L earned counsel for the State, o n instructions from ASI Gurdia l Singh, has su b mitted that the petitioner has j o ined the investigation and is n o longer required for further investigation.

¶29

I n view of the statement made by learned State counsel, th e interim order dated 18.02.2026 passed by th i s Court, is made absolute. Th e petitioner sh a ll continue to join investigati o n, as and when called by th e Investigating O fficer and shall also abide by t he conditions as provided unde r Section 482(2 ) of the BNSS.

¶30

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 06.04.2026 JUDGE

¶31

Gurpreet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/ N o ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶32

GURPREET 2026.04.07 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

Mukesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangat Singh Alias Manga Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pooja Rani Vs State of Haryana

Jagsir Singh @ Jagseer Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ahmed Jilan Shaikh Vs State of Haryana

Dimple Kharour and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another