JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J (Oral)

1. This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 37 dated 11.04.2022, registered under Sections 304 and 34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sekhwan, District Gurdaspur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case has been registered on the statement of Baldev Singh son of Bachan Singh, who is the father of the deceased Manjinder Singh, and in the FIR it has been stated by the said Baldev Singh that on 10.04.2022, his cousin Ajit Singh had informed him on the phone that one Sahil Sharma had called and told that someone had fired a gun shot at Manjinder Singh during a quarrel and that he had been taken to the hospital. It is further alleged in the FIR that the complainant came to know that Ajay @ Prontha had a quarrel with some persons and he had called Manjinder Singh (deceased) along with some other boys, to the place, where the quarrel had taken place and there some unknown persons had shot Manjinder Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and a supplementary statement dated 17.04.2022 was recorded by the complainant Baldev Singh and as per the said statement, Sahil Sharma (PW-5) and Manpreet Singh @ Sabi (PW-4) were the eye witnesses in the present case, whereas, the complainant was not an eye witness. It is contended that even as per the version given in the supplementary statement dated 17.04.2022, deceased Manjinder Singh, petitioner as well as co-accused Davinder Singh all belonged to the party of Ajay Masih @ Prontha and were on the same side and it was the opposite party who had started throwing brick bats towards the petitioner and the deceased and that the fire shot was to save themselves. It is further submitted that the eye witnesses Manpreet Singh and Sahil Sharma have been examined as PW-4 and PW-5, respectively and both the said two witnesses have specifically stated in their examination-in-chief that they do not know how Manjinder Singh had received the firearm injury and as to who was the person, who inflicted the said injury and that the said witnesses have been declared hostile.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant Baldev Singh, who is the father of the deceased, has been examined as PW-1 and even from his examination-in-chief, it is apparent that he was not an eye witness and he had received the information from Ajit Singh, who had been informed by Sahil Sharma, about the incident and as per his evidence, Manjinder Singh was accidentally injured and the deceased belonged to the same party as the petitioner and co-accused Davinder Singh, who were being attacked with brick bats. It is further submitted that since the eye witnesses i.e., PW4 and PW5 have not supported the case of the prosecution, thus, there is every likelihood that the petitioner would be acquitted and that the petitioner was arrested on 14.02.2023 and was thereafter granted the interim bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.02.2024 and the said interim bail was continuing till date and during the said interim bail, he was never misused the concession of the said interim bail. It is further submitted that in the present case, investigation is complete and challan has been presented and there are 30 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 13 witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that co-accused of the petitioner Davinder Singh, who is on the same footing as the petitioner, has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in CRM-M-39516-2023.

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in two other cases and that when petitioner was trying to snatch the pistol from co-accused Davinder Singh, it had accidentally hit Manji