IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 9^th April, 2026 Baljit Singh @ Baba ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 162 dated 28.07.2024 registered under Sections 109, 3(5) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 61(2), 190 and 191(3) were added and offence under Section 3(5)

was deleted later on) at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar.

2. The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant-Harpal Singh on the allegations that on 28.07.2024, he along with his friend Rajan was going towards market when the present petitioner along with co-accused had intercepted him. They hurled abuses. The petitioner had fired a shot with a pistol and the bullet hit his left shoulder and another shot was fired towards his friend Rajan which hit left side of his chest and thereafter, the assailants had fled away. The injured were taken to the hospital for treatment.

3. As per the further allegations, on 12.08.2024, one Puran Singh approached the investigating officer and got his statement recorded to the effect that on the fateful day i.e. 28.07.2024, he along with his son Ajay Pal was present in his shop when the petitioner armed with a pistol and accompanied by the co-accused as well as 5-6 youths known to him, had came there on motor bike and had fired a shot at him with an intent to kill him. He had narrow escape. All of them extended beatings to him and on clamour being raised, they had fled away after taking cash amount of Rs. 75,000/- from his shop. The petitioner was arrested on 22.05.2025. The remaining accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands completed. The petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The provisions of Section 109 of the BNS are not at all attracted in this case as no injury alleged to have been sustained by the victims, has been opined to be dangerous to life. There is no medico legal report or opinion from any government institution with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the victims. The victims were treated at a private hospital. No medico legal report or any other record from the private hospital forms part of the challan report. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He has a permanent abode. There are no chances of his absconding. He is in custody since long. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. He by conniving with the co-accused had fired shots upon the complainant and his friend Rajan Singh. Both of them had sustained injuries. The injury sustained by victim Rajan Singh was a firearm injury and this fact has been corroborated by the medico legal report of both the injured. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. There are chances of his absconding, intimidating the witnesses or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable