Pawan Singh @ Dari v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.214 Date of Decision: 28.04.2026 PAWAN SINGH @ DARI

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the first petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 75 dated 15.06.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka, under Sections 109 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (earlier Sections 307 and 120-B IPC). Subsequently, offence under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 (earlier Section 302 IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added during the course of investigation. 2.

Briefly stated, the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Satpal Singh, who stated that he works as a labourer and had a minor altercation with one Gopi son of Mohinder Singh about one month prior to the occurrence, after which Gopi had allegedly been threatening him with dire consequences. On 15.06.2025, when the complainant had gone to purchase groceries from the shop of Resham Singh, he allegedly noticed Harpreet Singh @ Happy and the present petitioner

Pawan Singh @ Dari on a motorcycle staring at him. Thereafter, at about 4:40 PM, when he came out of the shop, a white Creta car allegedly arrived at the spot from which Gopi son of Mahinder Singh and Ravi, armed with pistols, allegedly came out and started firing at him with an intention to kill him. In an attempt to save himself, the complainant ran towards his house, however, a bullet allegedly struck the back of his left leg causing him to fall down. Upon hearing the gunshots, villagers gathered at the spot, following which the assailants fled away in their car. Thereafter, the complainant's brother Malkiat Singh reached the spot and got him admitted to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific role has been attributed to him except the allegation that he had allegedly conducted reconnaissance (reiki) of respondent No.2/complainant and passed on information regarding his whereabouts to the co-accused. It is contended that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and neither any injury nor any weapon has been attributed to him. Learned counsel further submits that the main allegation of firing, which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased, is attributed to co-accused Gopi, who is already behind bars.

It is further argued that the occurrence allegedly took place at about 4:40 PM, however, at the relevant time, the petitioner was not even present at the spot, which is evident from the CCTV footage appended with the present petition showing that he was travelling on a motorcycle along with his mother.

months and twenty-two days and out of twelve prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date and even charges are yet to be framed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the co-accused, played an active role by conducting reiki and providing information to the co-accused regarding the whereabouts of the complainant, which ultimately facilitated the commission of the offence. It is thus argued that though no specific injury or weapon has been attributed to the petitioner, his role in the conspiracy is significant and, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 5.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and the only allegation against him is that he had allegedly conducted reiki of the complainant and informed the co-accused about his whereabouts. The specific allegation of firing is attributed to co-accused Gopi, who is already in custody. The petitioner has remained in custody for the last about nine months and twenty-two days. It is also not disputed that out of twelve prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far and even charges are yet to be framed, therefore, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. 6.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, and considering the nature of allegations attributed to the petitioner, his period of

incarceration and the delay in commencement of trial, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition.

7.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8.

However, it is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 28.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No