JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

1. The petitioners incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. As per paragraph 11 of the reply, the accused have no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

'2. That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that aforesaid FIR No. 87 dated 18.05.2024 was registered on the basis of the statement of Lovely Kumar son of Harjinder Kumar, who had alleged therein that on 18.05.2024, he was drinking sugarcane juice on the roadside at Bhakha Hari Singh and about 02:15 PM, one Audi Car No. CH01- 4781 came from Ajnala side and the petitioner No. 2 Amandeep Singh was driving the aforesaid car and Sartaj Singh was sitting on the next seat and the coaccused Sukhdev Singh, Varinder Singh (petitioner No. 2) and Bunty were sitting on the back seat, who on seeing him stopped and alighted from the car and the co-accused Sukhdev Singh raised a lalkara to catch hold of him and the petitioner No. 1 Varinder Singh caused injury on his right wrist with a blow of a kirpan. He further alleged that thereafter Sartaj Singh pulled out his pistol but the pistol misfired and the petitioner No. 2 Amandeep Singh fired upon him with his pistol and one bullet hit him on the fingers of his left hand and one bullet hit on the ground near his feet and thereafter Sartaj Singh again fired upon him with an intention to kill him but he escaped himself by fleeing away from the spot and all the aforesaid accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. The detailed facts mentioned by Lovely Kumar in his aforesaid statement has been reproduced in the true translation of the aforesaid FIR No. 87 dated 18.05.2024 attached with the petition as Annexure P-1, which may kindly be read as a part of present paragraph as same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.'

4. The petitioners' counsel refers to para 4 of the bail petition, which reads as follows:

'That it is very much apparent from the FIR that the Petitioner No 2 has been alleged two gun shots were fired by him, out of which one gun shot hit the fingers of the left hand of complainant, the entire story of the complainant is concocted and the allegations are fabricated. no, shots were fired by the petitioner, no.2, whereas the fact petitioner has fired remains a shot neither that nor the there is any injury. The Copy of the MLR of the complainant is also annexed herewith as Annexure P-2.'

5. The petitioners' counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family.

6. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

'6. That during the investigation, the petitioner No. 2 Amandeep Singh was arrested on 24.05.2024 and the pistol used by him in the alleged occurrence was recovered at his instance from his house pursuant to his disclosure statement dated 24.05.2024, which was taken into police possession vide recovery memo dated 24.05.2024.

7. That during the investigation, the complainant Lovely Kumar recorded his supplementary statement dated 16.06.2024, alleging therein that on 18.05.2024, the petitioner No. 1 Varinder Singh was armed with a kirpan and he caused injury on his right wrist with a blow of a kirpan and thereafter Sartaj Singh fired at him with an intention to kill him but he saved his life by hiding himself behind the car and thereafter Varinder Singh caused injury on his hands and fingers with a blow of kirpan and the petitioner No. 2 Amandeep Singh also fired