IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.12.2025 Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Ranjodh S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.102 dated 14.07.2025 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1985 at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, co-accused/Gopi Kishan @ Gopi, real brother of the petitioner was apprehended by the Police and a country made pistol alongwith magazine and two live cartridges of .32 bore were recovered from him. During the disclosure, he nominated the petitioner with the person from whom the weapon had been procured.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has made vehement attempt to contend that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no recovery had been effected from the petitioner.

4. However, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is involved in 13 other cases, which includes the offences not only under the Arms Act, 1985 but also under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 including heinous offences. The details of the same are tabulated as under:-

S# FIR No. and Date Registered under Section(s) Police Station

1 206/09.07.2015 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Patti 2 122/08.10.2016 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act Patti

3 227/09.08.2018 25 of the Arms Act City Tarn Taran

4 92/16.06.2019 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Patti

5 143/25.08.2019 25/27 of the Arms Act and City Patti Sections 307, 506, 427, 323, 148, 149 I.P.C.

6 150/01.09.2019 452, 323, 447, 506, 148, 149 Patti I.P.C.

7 194/19.10.2019 21/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Patti 8 84/05.06.2021 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Patti 9 40/28.02.2022 21/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Patti 10 196/25.11.2022 15/18/21/22/29 of N.D.P.S. Patti Act and 25/27 of the Arms Act.

5. Taking into consideration the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the consistency with which he has been involved in a number of cases, it cannot be perceived as a case of false implication.

6. Consequently, there are no compelling circumstances as would convince this Court to extend the concession of pre-arrest/interim bail to the petitioner, the present petition is accordingly dismissed (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

15.12.2025 JUDGE

Mangal Singh