IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 27.01.2026 Shahil @ Mohd. Sahil @ Bhadewala ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate and Mr. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

CRM-50997-2025

1. Application is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-M-70884-2025 (O&M)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.103 dated 14.05.2025 registered under Sections 125, 351(2) and 25 of Arms Act (Offence under Section 109(1), 191(3) and 190 of BNS added later on) at Police Station City I Malerkotla, District Malerkotla.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant-Mohammad Shehbaz on 14.05.2025 alleging that on the same night he had received a call from Mohammad Kaif who started hurling abuses to him on his cell phone. Some time thereafter the accused-Mohammad Kaif alongwith the petitioner, the co-accused and some unknown persons, came outside the house of the complainant and started firing with some firearms. At that time, the complainant was standing on the roof of his house. The petitioner also fired a shot in the air. Thereafter, co-accused Ali and Moon also fired shots with their respective weapons. The petitioner and his mother had a narrow escape. The assailants then left while proclaiming that they will blow up his house with a bomb. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Mohammad Kaif @ Potia and some co-accused were arrested on 16.05.2025. Recovery of some fire arms was effected from them. The petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2025. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Some other accused were also nominated and arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands completed.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 21.05.2025. He is on bail in another case registered against him. His continued detention is not going to serve any useful purpose. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. Another case pending against him cannot be a ground to deny benefit of bail to him. Moreso, a compromise has also been arrived at between the petitioner, co-accused and the complainant and the dispute between them, has been resolved. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

3. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by learned State counsel. It is argued by learned State counsel that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He is a habitual offender as another case is also pending against him. There are chances of committing similar offences by him if released on bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant has affirmed the factum of compromise and has not contested the petition.

5. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object of that assembly, he had allegedly fired shots with an attempt to kill the complainant and his family members. However, none had received injury in the incident. The petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2025. Investigation now stands completed. The trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for