Lokesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Name & age of Petitioner (s)	FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Station	District
Lokesh Kumar, aged about 37 years	61	25.05.2025	S. 406 & 420 of IPC & S. 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014	Division No.2	Police Commissionerate Jalandhar

¶17

In the present case, on 11.02.2026, following order was passed

¶18

by this Court:-

¶19

“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that petitioner has nothing to do with the present crime. Further submits that the total alleged transaction took place of Rs.9.50 lakhs in ash and nothing is found deposited in the bank account of the accused persons including the petitioner herein.

¶20

Learned counsel argues that even if the inquiry conducted by the police in pursuance to the complaint, the allegations are primarily against the Ashok Kumar, who is father of the petitioner. In that regard, learned counsel refers the conclusion of inquiry report reproduced at Page Nos.18 & 19 of the paper-book. Thus, there being no active role of the petitioner, learned counsel prays for grant of concession of anticipatory

¶21

JAWALA RAM 2026.07.16 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-7997-2026

¶23

2 -

¶24

bail to the petitioner in the present case.

¶25

Notice of motion.

¶26

On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and seeks some time to respond to the submissions addressed by learned counsel opposite, after seeking instructions. And, in case of necessity, to file status report. 6. Adjourned to 27.04.2026 .

¶27

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

¶28

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

¶29

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.

¶30

At this stage, on oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant – Manjeet Kaur w/o late S. Darshan Singh, r/o Kahanuwan road, Batala, is hereby impleaded as respondent No.2, in the array of respondents.

¶31

On filing of amended memo of parties in the registry within a period of two days, let notice be also issued to newly added respondent No.2 for the date fixed. ”

¶32

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 11.02.2026, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.

¶33

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Rakesh Kumar, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner on 17.03.2026, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated

¶36

JAWALA RAM 2026.07.16 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶37

CRM-M-7997-2026 - 3 -

¶38

11.02.2026, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute .

¶39

However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

¶40

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of , accordingly.

¶41

However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

¶42

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically.

¶43

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶44

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶45

July 15, 2026 J.Ram

¶46

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶47

JAWALA RAM 2026.07.16 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Lokesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Garg Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Taranpreet Singh Alias Taran Vs State of Punjab

Sanjeev Juneja and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Neeraj Alias Sapola Vs State of Haryana

Mohammad Suffian Vs State of Punjab and Another