IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-13079-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.01.2026 Piara Masih @ Shooter ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG Punjab.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The present is a second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.41 dated 25.04.2023, registered under Sections 307, 34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur.

2. The FIR in question was registered on the statement of the complainant Rajinder Kumar with regard to firearm injuries suffered by his son Amit Dhunna. The FIR alleges that two unidentified assailants fired gunshots and fled from the spot. The name of the present petitioner does not find mention in the FIR, nor is any specific role attributed to him therein.

3. The petitioner came to be nominated at a later stage during investigation, primarily on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him after his arrest in another case. Challan has since been presented, charges have been framed, and the trial is stated to be pending for prosecution evidence.

4. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 02 years, 04 months and 30 days.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the entire factual narrative of the investigation and has argued that the prosecution story suffers from serious infirmities, which prima facie dilute the case against the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor in the initial statement of the complainant or the injured. Even the injured Amit Dhunna did not name the petitioner at the first available opportunity. This, according to learned counsel, creates a serious dent in the prosecution version.

7. The petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of his own disclosure statement, which was allegedly recorded after his arrest in some other case. It is argued that such disclosure statements, particularly when uncorroborated, are weak pieces of evidence, the admissibility and probative value whereof shall be determined only during trial. Learned counsel submits that the investigation has travelled through multiple shifting versions. Initially, some other persons were suspected, later, new accused were roped in and finally, the petitioner was nominated, allegedly to complete the challan within the statutory period. Even assuming firearm injuries were caused, the FIR does not specify which accused fired the gunshot, nor does it attribute any overt act to the petitioner. The prosecution has thus failed to establish, at least prima facie, the specific role of the petitioner. It is argued that although one injury has been opined to be caused by a firearm, the medical opinion does not conclusively support the prosecution version insofar as attribution of injury to a particular accused is concerned.

8. It is further argued that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.08.2023. Despite presentation of challan and framing of charges, only one witness out of 29 has been examined so far. The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration of more than two years and four months, which, according to learned counsel, amounts to pre-trial punishment, especially when guilt is yet to be established.

9. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application with equal vehemence and has relied upon the status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as well as the FSL/ballistic report.

10. The offence alleged is under Section 307 IPC, involving firearm injuries, which by itself reflects the gravity of the crime. The FSL report dated 30.10.2023 clearly opines that the cartridge cases recovered from the spot were fired from the country-made pistol recovered fro