Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

gBail petitioner namely Sunny Gill, who is behind the bars since 20.6.2024, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.160/2024, dated 20.6.2024 under Sections 307, 120-B & 201 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at PS Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent-State has filed the status repor.t and HC Abhinandan has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. In nutshell, case of the prosecution, as emerges from the status report/record made available to this Court, is that on 20.6.2024, at 1:48 p.m., one gun shot was fired in the premisefs of District Court, Bilaspur, as a result thereof, one person namely Saurav Patyal alias Fandi had sustained bullet injury on his back. Allegedly the gunshot was fired by the bail-petitioner, who, after thre incident, fled from the place of occurrence. However, police, within a short span of time, arrested the bail-petitioner and since then, he is behind bars. Person namely Saurav Patyal alias Fandi, in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C, alleged that on 20.6.2024, while he had come to District Court Bilaspur for getting his evidence recorded, one person carrying country made pistol (hereinafter referred to as the “Katta”) in his hand fired one gunshot, which did not hitihim, however, he fired another gunshot which hit on right side of his back. He alleged that he threw a stone towards the person, who had fired at him, as a result thereof, he fled from the spot and thereafter, he was taken to the hospital by his friends namely Kulbhushan alias Lucky and Pankaj. He also alleged that subsequently, he came to know that person namely Sunny Gill, who is resident of Haryana, had fired gunshot at him. In the aforesaid background, initially police registered case under Section 307. of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act against Sunny Gill i.e. petitioner herein, but subsequently on the basis of recording in the mobile phone, co-accused Puranjan Thakur and Malkiyat Singh @ Malli were arrested, who had allegedly engaged the bail-petitioner for fkilling the complainant at the instance of co-accused Puranjan Thakur. Co-accused Puranjan Thakur and Malktiyat Singh already stand enlarged on bail pursuant to orders 13.08.2024 and 08.11.2024r passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) Nos.1595 and 2319 of 2024, whereas the bail-petitioner is behind bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered fCrom the bail petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinatedelay in conclusion of trial.

4. Though after approximately two years of filing of the FIR, ilearned Court below has been able to frame charges, but till date, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined.

5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner and at present, he is in judicial custody, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, .he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Kahol, states that otherwise also, bail-petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused Malkiyat Singh @ Malli and Puranjan Thakur, on account of his having fired gun-shot at the complainant. While referring to antecedefnts of the bail-petitioner, Mr. Kahol, states that in past, as many as three cases, out of which one case under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code already stand registered against the bail-petitioner in the Starte of Punjab. He further states that since bail- petitioner is a hardened criminal, there is every possibility of his fleeing from justice in the event of his being granting bail or he a