Gurmanpreet Singh Alias Gurman v. State Of Punjab

-1213 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.04.2026 Gurmanpreet Singh @ Gurman ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, D.A.G., Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1.

Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present second petition praying for granting him regular bail in case FIR No.24 dated 12.03.2025, under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190, 308(2), 333, 324 (2), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur. 2.

Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Gurtej Singh. It was alleged that on 12.03.2025, at about 2:30 PM, after parking his vehicle, when he entered his premises meant for keeping machines, one Verna Car being driven by Harpreet Singh @ Sariya alongwith two more vehicles stopped outside his premises. It was alleged that Gurmandeep Singh @ Gurman (petitioner herein) carrying pistol armed with iron pipe fitted with iron hook; Varinder Singh carrying pistol armed with iron pipe fitted with axle of cycle, Harpreet Singh armed with pistol; Sartaj Singh Sunny

-2Baba armed with pistol; Yuvraj Singh Bobby armed with baseball bat alongwith 12-13 unidentified persons armed with .315 bore rifle, pistol, swords, iron rods and baseball bats etc. alighted from the vehicles. Varinder Singh raised lalkara whereupon, Gurmandeep Singh gave blow of iron pipe fitted with iron hook, with an intention to kill, same hit back of his head. Varinder Singh also gave iron rod blow with intention to kill, same hit front side of his head due to which the complainant fell down. Thereafter, Gurmandeep Singh gave another blow of iron pipe, same hit at his left elbow joint and wrist. Unknown persons also caused multiple injuries to him. It was alleged that Varinder Singh at gun point, snatched the complainant's bag containing .32 bore revolver, live cartridges, Rs.

30,000/- in cash, signed cheque, ATM cards, Aadhar Card, PAN card and driving license as well as vandalized the car of the complainant parked outside and fled away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. It was further alleged that the motive behind this occurrence was that earlier, the complainant got registered one FIR i.e. FIR No.53 dated 15.06.2022 under Sections 324, 434, 526, 326, 148, 149 IPC against one Jagjeet Singh Bobby Brar and others. Thereafter, Varinder Singh and other accused persons repeatedly requested the complainant to compromise the matter, however, when the said compromise failed in the said FIR, they caused injuries to the complainant. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the culprits. The FIR was registered and investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 28.05.2025.

-3praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 22.12.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-50962-2025 however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.11.2025. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present second petition praying for grant of regular bail. 3.

It has been vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case. He has submitted that as per case of the prosecution, the petitioner was allegedly armed with pistol alongwith iron pipe, however, no firearm injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He submits that even otherwise as per the MLR report, injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature and that too on non-vital parts of the body. He has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest, however, only challan has been presented and out of total 08 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. He has further submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and thus, in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner that he, in connivance with his co-accused, has actively

-4participated in the occurrence. He has submitted that the petitioner was duly armed with pistol and iron pipe fitted with iron hook (dhangi), which is a sharp edged weapon. He has further submitted that total 15 injuries were inflicted upon the complainant out of which 04 injuries have been attributed to the petitioner, which are on the head of the complainant. He has submitted that earlier also the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-50962-2025, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.11.2025. He, on instructions, has submitted that challan has been presented and out of 08 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner and submits that he is involved in one more case. He thus, has submitted that no case for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that there are serious allegations against the petitioner being the member of an unlawful assembly. Petitioner along with other co-accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, inflicted total 15 injuries upon the complainant with an intention to kill him, out of which 04 injuries were attributed to the petitioner. Custody certificate filed by the State shows that the petitioner has undergone incarceration of 10 months and 12 days as on 09.04.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in one more case for the commission of similar

-5offence. As submitted before this Court, only challan has been presented and out of 08 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. 6.

Perusal of the record would show that earlier also the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-509622025, however, when this Court was not inclined to grant the said relief to him, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.11.2025. 7.

Keeping in view the above said position, this Court does not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail, at this stage. Petition stands dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 10.04.2026 JUDGE ps-I Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No