Allowed¶8

Pardeep Kumar Sharma Alias Pardeep Sharma v. State of Ut Chd

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Apr 2026CRM-M/5954/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS 2023; FIR No. 110 dated 01.08.2024; Police Station Mani Majra Chandigarh; Sections 406 & 420 IPC; Section 66D IT Act 2000; interim anticipatory bail made absolute; custodial interrogation for recovery of money; accused cannot be compelled to assist recovery; right of defence; Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal 939 of 2026 SC; Surya Partap Singh J.; 27.04.2026

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim anticipatory bail order dated 03.02.2026 made absolute. ¶8

Pardeep Kumar Sharma Alias Pardeep Sharma Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted; interim anticipatory bail order dated 03.02.2026 made absolute.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who has joined the investigation while on interim anticipatory bail, is entitled to anticipatory bail and to have the interim order dated 03.02.2026 made absolute, notwithstanding the State's contention that custodial interrogation is necessary to facilitate recovery of money. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

Taking into account the submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail; the petition is allowed and the interim anticipatory bail order dated 03.02.2026 is made absolute.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency for recovery of incriminating material, since that may harm his interests or amount to defeating his right of defence, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (adopted here as a relevant factor).

¶7

Key takeaways

Nothing significant remains to be recovered with the petitioner's assistance, as the money cannot be treated to be a piece of evidence which may help in linking the petitioner with the commission of the crime.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Chandigarh), Criminal Misc. No. M-5954 of 2026, decided 27.04.2026 by Surya Partap Singh, J. — First anticipatory-bail petition under S. 482 BNSS 2023 arising out of FIR No. 110 dt. 01.08.2024, P.S. Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh (offences under Ss. 406 & 420 IPC and S. 66D IT Act, 2000). Interim anticipatory bail had been granted on 03.02.2026 conditional on joining investigation; petitioner complied. State counsel (on SI Rajesh Kumar's instructions) urged custodial interrogation, alleging non-cooperation and failure to facilitate recovery of money. Held: (i) an accused cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency in recovering incriminating material where that may harm his interests or defeat his right of defence — relying on Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2026 (SC, decided 16.02.2026); (ii) money cannot be treated as a piece of evidence linking the accused to the crime, so nothing significant awaited recovery with his assistance. Petition allowed; interim bail order of 03.02.2026 made absolute.

¶1

109

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

Criminal Misc. No. M-5954 of 2026

¶4

Date of Decision: 27.04.2026

¶5

Pardeep Kumar Sharma alias Pardeep Sharma

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of U.T., Chandigarh

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh Sarao, Advocate for the petitioner(s) [Through Hybrid Mode].

¶12

Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, for U.T. Chandigarh/respondent.

¶13

Mr. Abhishek Narang and Mr. Hitender Atri, Advocates for the complainant.

¶14

Surya Partap Singh, J.

¶15

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. 110 dated 01.08.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 406 & 420 of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’ and Section 66D of ‘the Information Technology Act, 2000’ Police Station Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.

¶16

Vide order dated 03.02.2026, 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

¶17

join the investigation.

¶18

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

¶19

2026.04.27 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

Criminal Misc. No. M-5954 of 2026

¶21

¶22

Heard.

¶23

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 03.02.2026, 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 03.02.2026 be made absolute.

¶24

The learned State counsel, along with learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. The learned State counsel, on the instructions from SI Rajesh Kumar, has contended that although the petitioner has joined the investigation, but he did not cooperate, and failed to facilitate recovery of money. As per learned State counsel, in view of above custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

¶25

The record has been perused carefully.

¶26

With regard to fact-situation of this case and the abovementioned arguments, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:-

¶27

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];

¶28

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.04.27 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

Criminal Misc. No. M-5954 of 2026

¶30

¶31

iii) that nothing significant has to be recovered in this case with the assistance of petitioner, as the money cannot be treated to be a piece of evidence which may be helpful in linking the petitioner with the commission of crime;

¶32

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 03.02.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute.

¶33

(Surya Partap Singh) Judge April 27, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶34

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.04.27 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pardeep Kumar Sharma Alias Pardeep Sharma v. State of Ut Chd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep Kumar Sharma Alias Pardeep Sharma v. State of Ut Chd

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

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana

Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Vs State of Punjab

Karandeep Singh @ Karan @ Lambar Vs State of Punjab

Abhishek Vs State of Haryana

Kartik Kung @ Kartik Vs State of Punjab

Satnam Singh @ Bunty Vs State of Punjab