Allowed

Mohammad Suffian v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2026CRM-M/9634/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS 2023. Court converted ad-interim bail to absolute bail as custodial interrogation was not needed, imposing conditions to submit passport details.

What did the court decide?

The court made the ad-interim anticipatory bail order absolute, subject to conditions including joining investigation and submitting passport details within one week.

Mohammad Suffian Vs State of Punjab and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-9634-2026

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

324-2

¶5

CRM-M-9634-2026 Decided on : 15.07.2026

¶6

Mohammad Sufiaan . . . Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab & anr. . . . Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. APS Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab assisted by ASI – Rakesh Kumar. ****

¶12

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

¶13

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,

¶14

2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First

¶15

Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

¶16

Name & age of Petitioner (s)	FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Station	District
Mohammad Sufiaan	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 18.02.2026, 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 cash and nothing is found deposited in the bank account of the accused persons including the petitioner herein.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the inquiry conducted by the police pursuant to the complaint is considered, the allegations are primarily directed against co-accused Ashok Kumar, and the petitioner has played no active role in the alleged offence. Counsel further submits that co-accused Lokesh Kumar has already been granted the concession of interim bail by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2026

¶21

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

¶22

CRM-M-9634-2026

¶23

¶24

passed in CRM-M-7997-2026 (P-3). In view of the above, learned counsel prays that petitioner may also be granted the concession of anticipatory bail 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. 9. To be heard alongwith CRM-M-7997-2026.”

¶30

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

contends that in compliance of the order dated 18.02.2026, 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 18.02.2026, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute .

¶35

However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as

¶36

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

¶37

CRM-M-9634-2026 - 3 -

¶38

and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

¶39

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of , accordingly.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶44

July 15, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶45

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

Mohammad Suffian v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Suffian v. State of Punjab and Another

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

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

Lokesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab