IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Azad Singh @ Manga ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of decision: April 02, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 02, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Akash Balyan, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of the Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.190 dated 20.10.2024, under Sections 109 of the BNS, 2023 (Section 307 of IPC) and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Beas Amritsar, Punjab.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant, namely, Pankaj Kumar alleged that on 19.10.2024, at about 7:30 PM, while he was present at his shop, an unidentified person with a covered face, armed with a pistol, fired three shots at him. Fortunately, the weapon did not discharge. He attempted to apprehend the assailant, but the accused managed to escape from the shop. An accomplice of the accused was waiting outside on a motorcycle bearing registration number PB01-A-9981. With the help of nearby shopkeepers and passers-by, both individuals were successfully apprehended. The person who attempted to fire at the informant disclosed his name as Azad Masih (petitioner herein), while the co-accused identified himself as Amritpal @ Amit. The pistol recovered from the applicant had “Px5 Storm” written on it, and three live cartridges were recovered from the informant’s shop. Both accused were subsequently handed over to the police officials.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. Learned counsel has iterated that no injury has been caused to anyone in the incident in question.

3.1. Learned counsel has submitted that co-accused of the petitioner has been accorded the concession of bail, vide order dated 31.01.2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

3.2. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further stated that after completion of investigation, the challan stands presented on 19.12.2024 and out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, only 01 (in part) has been examined till date, hence, culmination of trial will take long. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01½ years, and, thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars further.

Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are direct/ serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned State counsel has argued that while the complainant was present in his shop, one unknown person (later on identified as the petitioner) tries to fire 03 shots, but somehow the weapons did not work. The complainant along with nearby shop-keepers and passer- by succeeded to apprehend the petitioner and his co-accused, who was waiting outside the shop on a motorcycle, and later on handed over to the police. Learned State counsel has submitted that after culmination of investigation, challan stands presented and out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, only 01 (in part) has been examined till date. Learned State counsel has argued that, in case, the petitioner is granted concession of regular bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties a