The decision emphasized the importance of considering discrepancies in witness statements, lack of evidence against the accused, and prolonged custody without significant trial progress in granting regular bail.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a second petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.86 dated 19.11.2019 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 506 and 120-B of IPC have been added later on) and Section 25 of the Arms Act No.27 of 1959 registered at Police Station Kotli Surat Mallian, District Batala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR, in the present case, has been registered on the statement of Sandeep Singh and in the said FIR, three persons were specifically named i.e. Balwinder Singh who was stated to be armed with daatar, Mandeep Singh and Major Singh, both stated to be armed with pistol. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR although it has been stated that there were 4- 5 other unidentified persons, out of whom, one person was armed with a pistol. It is contended that with respect to the unidentified persons, no specific injury caused to deceased-Dalbir Singh has been attributed to them in the FIR and that the complainant, thereafter, recorded supplementary statement on 19.11.2019 itself, in which also, he has not named the petitioner. It is argued that the co-accused Amritpal Singh was arrested on 25.11.2019 and the said Amritpal Singh in his disclosure statement (Annexure P-2), had stated that it was Harjinder Singh @ Jinda who was armed with pistol and that Harjinder Singh @ Jinda was not named in the FIR and thus, the one unknown person who was carrying the pistol was, as per the statement of co-accused Amritpal Singh, the said Harjinder Singh @ Jinda. It is also submitted that in the present case, three main accused who were named in the FIR were Major Singh, Balwinder Singh and Mandeep Singh. Major Singh, in his disclosure statement (Annexure P-13) has not named the present petitioner and has stated that Mandeep Singh, his brother was armed with a pistol and he himself was also armed with a pistol. It is also contended that in the said disclosure statement of Major Singh, Harjinder Singh @ Jinda was also stated to be armed with a pistol. Balwinder Singh, who is the father of Major Singh and Mandeep Singh, has also not named the present petitioner in his disclosure statement dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure P-4). It is argued that the petitioner, for the first time, has been named in the disclosure statement of Mandeep Singh dated 26.04.2020 who is the third accused named in the FIR. It is stated that the disclosure statement of Mandeep Singh is contrary to the disclosure statement of Major Singh, Balwinder Singh and also the other co-accused inasmuch as in the disclosure statement of Mandeep Singh, it had stated that the present petitioner had fired gunshots with his pistol. Reference has been made to the disclosure statement of Mandeep Singh (Annexure P-14) to highlight the fact that with respect to his brother namely Major Singh, he has stated that said Major Singh was armed with daatar whereas as per the disclosure statement of Major Singh (Annexure P-13), Major Singh himself has stated that he was armed with a pistol. It is stated that the said Mandeep Singh tried to save himself by not making any incriminating statement against himself in his disclosure statement, although, it is the specific case of the complainant in the FIR that Mandeep Singh was armed with a pistol and had fired shots along with his brother Major Singh. It is argued that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner, much less, of any pistol whereas recovery of pistol was effected from Mandeep Singh, Major Singh and Lovepreet Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of order dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur granting the concession of bail to Lovepreet Singh @ Love, would show that in para 16 of the said order, it has specifically been recorded that as per the injury chart of Dalbir Singh, injur