IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52046-2024 Decided on : 01.12.2025 Sunil Kumar . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Sumeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

Name ofFIR Date Section(s) Police Station District Petitioner(s) No.

Sunil Kumar 176 11.12.2023 307, 34 of IPC & 25/54/59 ofFocal Point Ludhiana Arms Act, 1959 [S. 392 of IPC added later on]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and that the FIR was registered at the instance of complainant – Sohan Lal with the allegation that on 10.12.2023 at about 9:50 p.m., while returning after taking water, he noticed three unknown persons armed with weapons, who started demanding money from him. Upon his refusal, a gunshot was fired with an intention to kill him, which hit on his right thigh. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was implicated subsequently on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-

accused Balwinder Singh, which is not an admissible piece of evidence in law.

3. It is further argued that recovery of country-made pistol along with magazine containing two live cartridges is already the subject matter of another case i.e. FIR No. 268 dated 09.12.2023 under Sections 379-B(2), 34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act (Sections 307, 411 IPC added later), registered at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana. Learned counsel also submits that co- accused Aryan Singh @ Raja has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 in CRM-M-2600-2025 titled as “Aryan Singh @ Raja v. State of Punjab”, copy whereof has been placed on record. Thus, the petitioner also deserves the benefit of regular bail on the ground of parity.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate dated 30.11.2025 in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner is involved in a serious offence wherein the allegation is of firing on the complainant with an intention to kill. It is further submitted that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined. As per custody certificate, petitioner is involved in several other cases. Therefore, his antecedents disentitle him to any concession.

In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is already on bail in all such cases and in one of them, i.e., FIR No. 250 dated 10.12.2023, the sentence period has already been completed on 13.11.2025.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant material available on record.

7. On 27.10.2025, while dealing with the prayer for bail, the following order was passed by this Court:–

“ Petitioner-Sunil Kumar has filed instant petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 176 dated 11.12.2023 registered under Sections 307, 34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act (Section 392 IPC added later on) at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana.

The instant FIR has been registered at the instance of one Sohan Lal, aged 63 years, who used to work as salesman at a liquor shop. As per FIR, on 10.12.2023 at about 9.50 p.m., after taking meals he had come outside to take water and while coming back inside, he noticed that three unknown persons armed with weapons are also there. They started demanding money and on refusal, shot fired upon the complainant with the intent