IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

278 CRM-M-20679-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.10.2025 ASI Harbhajan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 314 dated 19.10.2022, registered under Section 307 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Section 307 of IPC deleted and Section 302 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Civil Lines, Police Commissionerate, Amritsar, District Amritsar. The previous petition was dismissed as not pressed.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by complainant Aman Kumar on 19.10.2022 alleging that he along with Ankush Sood, Vikram Verma and Neeraj Mahajan used to work in the mobile phone shop of Gaurav Sood. On the same day, he along with aforesaid three persons was present in the shop of Gaurav Sood and was working therein, when the petitioner reached there along with one more person and asked for showing mobile for purchase. The complainant was already acquainted with the petitioner as he used to visit their shop for taking mobile phone. While having conversations with them, the petitioner, who was a police official, took out his pistol and started saying that the same was made in USA and it could fire five bullets consecutively. He, thereafter, picked up his pistol from the counter and moved the same towards Neeraj Mahajan, complainant himself and Ankush Sood. A shot was fired with the said pistol and the bullet hit the right side of chest of Ankush Sood, thereby injuring him. The petitioner, who had come along with his son, managed to flee from the shop. The injured was rushed to the hospital. Initially, a case under Section 307 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered. However, the victim succumbed to his injuries and thereafter, offence under Section 302 of IPC was added. Investigation proceedings were initiated. CCTV footage of the camera installed at the place of occurrence was procured and watched by the investigating agency. Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded, as per which, the petitioner was accompanied by one Jashandeep Singh at the time of occurrence. Statements of the eye-witnesses were recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 19.10.2022. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and alternatively under Section 304 of IPC.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, on the fateful day, he had visited the shop of the complainant to buy a mobile phone. He was carrying his service revolver and was in police uniform. The complainant and the deceased had expressed their desire to see the weapon and he had shown them while retaining it in his own possession. While briefly explaining the features of the same, the trigger of the revolver was pulled and a shot was fired, which hit the victim. The incident was totally accidental in nature and there was no intention or foul play or deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner to cause hurt to the victim. He had not escaped. Rather, he had taken the victim to hospital. He had voluntarily surrendered on 19.10.2022. At the most. The ingredients for commission of offence under Section 304-A of IPC are attracted against him. He is in custody since long. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted conce