IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurinderpal Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of Decision: March 25, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 25, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. B.B.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.30 dated 22.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 125, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 336, 34 of IPC) and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 [Sections 109, 308(4), 61(2), 346, 317(2) of BNS (Sections 307, 387, 120-B, 489, 411 of IPC) added later on], at Police Station Mattewal, Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the complainant, namely, Pavittarjit Singh, stated that on 22.06.2025, between 05:20 PM and 05:30 PM, he was present at his shop along with his helper, Gursahib Singh. During that time, two unidentified persons with muffled faces arrived on a motorcycle and fired two gunshots at him, which struck the outer wall of the medical store. The complainant chased the assailants with his licensed .32 bore pistol and fired in the air; however, the unknown persons managed to flee from the spot.

During the course of investigation, the complainant got his supplementary statement recorded, stating that he could not disclose certain material facts on 22.06.2025 as he was in a state of fear and perplexity. He further stated that he had been receiving threatening calls from unknown numbers demanding money, to which he did not initially pay much attention. Subsequently, after the incident, he came to know that the said calls were made by Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh and his father Gurinderpal Singh (petitioner herein). It is alleged that, upon his failure to pay the demanded ransom, the said accused persons, in furtherance of a premeditated plan and in conspiracy with their accomplice – Jasbir Ram @ Bui, attempted to kill him by firing gunshots at him on the date of occurrence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the fire shot(s) are not attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the said fire shot(s) has not hit anybody. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated

24.03.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner has been presented on 26.08.2025. Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, none has been examined till date. It is thus, indubitable, that conclusion of the trial will take long.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:

“18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sin