The lack of specific overt acts against the petitioner, his injuries during the incident, and the protracted trial period justified his release on bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “ BNSS ”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

2. As per the allegations, on 20.10.2023, the complainant Kulwinder Kaur along with Karanveer Singh and Karamjit Kaur was taking a walk in the area of Village Galoti Road at about 7 AM. Her father-in-law Veer Singh was also walking along with some other persons and was ahead of her. Within her sight, 14-15 persons came from the village side while riding on 3-4 motorbikes and two cars. They encircled Veer Singh and made an exhortation that he should not be left alive. Then, accused Sukhdev Singh opened an assault by firing shots with revolver and accused Gurdeep Singh also fired shots thereby injuring Veer Singh and his companion Ranjit Singh, both of whom fell on the ground. The petitioner- Surinderjit Singh armed with kapa, accused Gurcharan Singh armed with revolver, accused Raju Khalsa, Jagraj Singh former Sapranch, Dr. Preet, Malkit Singh, Ranjit Singh, Bhag Singh and some other unknown persons were also there. The accused Ranjit Singh struck a blow with a baseball bat thereby injuring Taranjit Singh who was taking care of the injured. The assailants then fled away on clamour being raised by the complainant and her companions. The injured were rushed to the hospital but injured Veer Singh and Ranjit Singh were declared to be brought dead whereas Taranjit Singh was provided treatment. As per the complainant, the motive was that the assailants were having grudge against her father-in-law on account of some audio recording sent by one accused Raju Khalsa.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The postmortem examination of dead bodies of the victims and inquest proceedings were conducted. The petitioner-Surinderjit Singh was arrested on 22.10.2023. The co-accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross version since the members of the complainant party were the aggressors and they were the persons who had initially opened assault upon the members of the accused party and had even caused firearm injuries to the petitioner on whose statement a DDR No.26 had been entered on 23.10.2023 against the victim and other members of the complainant party. The petitioner had sustained two firearm injuries at the hands of deceased Veer Singh. These injuries were grievous and dangerous to life. The members of complainant party have failed to explain the same.

5. It is further argued that even as per the allegations, the petitioner was simply present at the spot with kappa. No specific overt act and injury has been attributed to him. The members of complainant party were aggressors and the deceased Veer Singh had opened fire with a pistol aiming the same towards father of the petitioner and when the petitioner rushed for saving his father, he sustained firearm injury in his neck at the hands of Veer Singh. It was his father who fired a shot in self-defence that had hit Veer Singh. He is in custody since 22.10.2023. No recovery has been effected from him. Complainant Kulwinder Kaur has been partly examined in chief as PW-1 and she has not attributed any specific overt act to the petitioner. It was a case of free fight between two factions of the village over village politics. The trial will take considerable time to continue. His continued detention