IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parmjeet Singh ……Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab ……Respondent(s)

Decided on : 07.03.2026 Date of uploading: 07.03.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Utkrant Mahajan, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.289 dated 24.09.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 3(5), 351(3) of BNS 2023 and Sections 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the present FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant, Rajinder Singh, who alleged that in the year 2003 he had advanced a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner (herein) for his domestic needs. Despite repeated demands, the said amount was not returned. On the date of incident i.e. 22.09.2025, the complainant, along with his wife Rajwant Kaur, one Raj Kaur, and driver Vicky, went to the house of petitioner (herein) at village Gokhuwal to demand the repayment of the said amount. It has further been alleged that upon their arrival at the residence of petitioner, the petitioner and his wife started abusing and threatening them. During the course of the altercation, the wife of the petitioner allegedly brought a .315 bore rifle and handed it over to the petitioner, who allegedly fired 2–3 shots at the complainant with an intention to kill him, which struck the calf portion of his right leg. The complainant was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, and thereafter referred to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, and subsequently admitted to Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar, where due to severe fracture, his right leg below the calf had to be amputated during treatment. It is further alleged that the incident was recorded on video by Raj Kaur and the complainant’s wife. Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the complainant are earlier known to each other. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that on the date of alleged incident, the complainant alongwith 10 other persons barged into the house of the petitioner and raised illegal and unlawful demands, so as to extort money from them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while facing an imminent threat to his life as well as to the life of his wife, initially fired a shot in the air from his licensed rifle in order to ward off the complainant and the other persons accompanying him. However, the complainant and the persons accompanying him paid no heed to the said act and continued to harass and assault the petitioner and his wife. It is further submitted that during the course of alleged scuffle, the petitioner, in order to save himself, fired a shot towards the floor near the feet of the complainant, but the same inadvertently struck the complainant on his foot. It is also contended that on 27.09.2025, the petitioner sent an e-mail to the DIG, Amritsar, apprising him of the true facts and circumstances of the alleged occurrence. Along with the said e-mail, the petitioner had also annexed certain relevant documents including photographs of the alleged incident and a copy of his arms licence, however, no action has been taken thereupon till date. It is contended that the prosecution version is highly doubtful and the case is based upon a concocted story. It is further argue