IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-63014-2025 Date of decision: 11.11.2025 Lovejit Singh alias Love ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

*****

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.11 dated 06.02.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 309(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, District Batala.

2. The FIR ibid was registered on the basis of the statement of Inderjit Singh @ Lovely, owner of Lovely Jewellers, Fatehgarh Churian. He alleged that on 05.02.2025 at about 09:00/09:30 PM, his son, Yuvraj Singh informed him that an unidentified white car occupied by some young men was following him. Upon this, the complainant and his brother Jagjit Singh told Yuvraj Singh not to panic and to drive the car swiftly towards the shop. When the son of the complainant Yuvraj Singh reached, the same white car stopped nearby and its occupants tried to open the car door of the Yuvraj Singh. Upon Yuvraj Singh stepping out, the unidentified assailants snatched the goods he had brought from Amritsar. When the complainant and his brother Jagjit Singh intervened, two of the assailants armed with a pistol and a revolver, opened fired resulting in one bullet hit on the front side of right shoulder of the complainant and the other bullet hit on the right side of chest of brother of the complainant. The complainant and his brother retaliated using their licensed weapons upon which the assailants fled away from the scene in another vehicle parked nearby. Subsequently, the police registered the present FIR under Sections 109, 309(4), 32(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against unknown persons. Subsequently, vide rapat No.22 dated 07.02.2025, the petitioner and other co-accused were named. During investigation, it was revealed that Harnek and Simratpal were the ones who fired upon the complainant and his brother while the petitioner and other co-accused accompanied them during the commission of the offence.

In respect of the same incident, a cross-version was registered vide DDR No.21 dated 07.02.2025 on the complaint of Kuldip Kaur wife of deceased Harnek Singh alleging that it was, in fact, the complainant party, who had first opened fire, causing the death of her husband Harnek Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner iterated that the instant case is one of version and cross version and the petitioner has been falsely implicated at a later stage solely on the basis of the supplementary statement of Kuldip Kaur. Learned counsel has further iterated that there is no independent evidence, recovery or credible material linking the petitioner to the alleged crime, particularly when as per the complainant’s version, only three unknown assailants were involved. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR nor he has been assigned any specific role in the alleged firing incident. According to learned counsel, the medical examination of the complainant and his brother was conducted after an unexplained delay of 13 days, rendering the prosecution version doubtful. Learned counsel has further iterated that the allegations in the FIR do not attribute any overt act to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in a fabricated case. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner is innocent and is in no way connected with the alleged crime. The version presented by the complainant in the FIR is false, frivolous and baseless. Learned counsel has further submit