Gagan @ Malkit Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-27775-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27775-2026 Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 GAGAN @ MALKIT SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Ketan Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS corresponding Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 85 dated 21.04.2026 under Sections 109 of BNS corresponding Section 307 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Dharamkot.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with coaccused had caused fire arm injury on the person of the complainant with an intention to kill him with their respective weapons. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to local rivarly, grudge and suspicion based allegation. He further submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been nominated on the basis of conjectures. He furthers submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

4.

Notice of motion.

RENU RAWAT 2026.05.15 16.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-27775-2026  5.

Mr. P.S.Pandher, Asstt. AG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He further submits that recovery of alleged weapon used in the offence is yet to be effected so the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

6.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, and the fact that the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is yet to be effected, and therefore his custodial interrogation is necessary, this Court is of the view that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are made out to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed.

8.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 15.05.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.05.15 16.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh