DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of this petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, petitioner prays for his release on regular bail in case FIR No.90 dated 30.08.2023 under Section 336/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana.

2.1 FIR was lodged on the complaint of Amarjeet Singh, as per which, on 29.08.2023, he and his family were sleeping in their house situated in village Khanpur. At about 04:00 AM, they heard unusual noises, perceived by them as sounds of bursting of crackers. However, upon reviewing the CCTV footage from the cameras positioned in front of the house, complainant observed that a white coloured Brezza car had come, from which an individual with muffed face had disembarked, who fired gunshots from his pistol/revolver outside the gate of the complainant’s house. Another unidentified individual, who remained inside the car, also 1 of 3 CRM-M-64843-2023 2024:PHHC: 022996 Page 2 of 3 fired 3-4 gunshots from his firearm outside the main gate. FIR was registered.

2.2 During investigation, information was received to the effect that petitioner, apprehended in another case FIR No.31 dated 11.09.2023 registered at Police Station SSOC, Amritsar, under Sections 25 of the Arms Act and 120B IPC, had suffered disclosure statement, to have committed the crime on instructions from one Palwinder Singh @ Pinda on the night intervening 28/29.08.2023, outside the main gate of the residence of the complainant at Village Khanpur, PS Dehlon, Ludhiana. On getting this information, petitioner was nominated in this case. Production warrants were obtained. He was then apprehended in this case. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement, admitting his involvement to have committed the crime at the behest of Palwinder Singh @ Pinda and Harjeet Singh (son of the complainant).

2.3 Police report also reveals that CCTV footage of the alleged incident, as provided by the complainant, in a pen-drive was perused, revealing two persons firing gunshots but faces of the two persons were not visible as the same were deliberately covered. After concluding investigation, final report under Section 173 CrPC was filed in the Court.

3. Ld. counsel contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated simply on the basis of disclosure statement, allegedly suffered by him in the custody, which is inadmissible; that he is in custody for the last more than 4 months; that trial may take time to conclude and so, he be granted bail.

4. Ld. State counsel opposed the bail petition by pointing out the nature of allegations against the petitioner. Ld. State counsel also drawn 2 of 3 CRM-M-64843-2023 2024:PHHC: 022996 attention towards the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, who is involved in as many as 7 other cases, as per details given in the custody certificate.

Prayer is made for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have considered submissions of both the sides and appraised the record.

6. To the specific query put by this Court to ld. State counsel, he has responded on the instructions from the Investigating Officer that faces of the culprits in the CCTV footage are not identifiable. Ld. State counsel fairly conceded, on instructions from the IO, that face of the petitioner is not visible in the CCTV footage. It is also conceded that except for the disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner himself, there is no other evidence to connect him with the crime.

7. Having noticed the aforesaid circumstances, mere pendency of other cases against the petitioner or his criminal antecedents, cannot be a reason to decline bail. As per custody certificate, petitioner is in custody for the last 4 months and 17 days. Trial may take time to conclude.

8. As such, without commenting anything further on merits of the case, petition is allowed. Petitioner is admitte