Nirvair Singh @ Nirvail Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 29.05.2026 NIRVAIR SINGH @ NIRVAIL SINGH ... PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Gaurav Dutta, Advocate and Mr. K.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

*** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed Vakalatnama in Court, which is taken on record. 2.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.45 dated 20.02.2026 registered under Sections 109(2), 309(6) and 333 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 394 and 452 IPC) along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. 3.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant alleged that on the intervening night of 19.02.2026 and 20.02.2026, the petitioner entered the room of her daughter, threatened her with a pistol, attempted to snatch her mobile phone and when she resisted, fired a shot which allegedly touched the

-2backside of her head, causing injury. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly fled from the spot while extending threats.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to personal dispute arising out of his friendly relationship with the complainant's daughter. It is further submitted that although the FIR was registered on 20.02.2026, the medical examination of the alleged injured was conducted after 21 days, i.e. on 13.03.2026, and only simple scar injuries were found, which does not support the prosecution case. It is also argued that there is no direct or indirect evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged incident and he is not involved in any other criminal case. 5.

In compliance with the order dated 18.05.2026, the Investigating Officer, ASI Nirmal Singh, has appeared before this Court along with the medical records of the victim. As per the medical record produced, the final diagnosis recorded at Guru Nanak Dev Super Speciality Hospital, Tarn Taran, is of physical assault resulting in a gunshot injury with occipital fracture. 6.

Learned State counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of this petition as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the relevant facts.

7.

Learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9.

It is apparent from the material placed before this Court that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the medical record produced by the Investigating Officer, the final diagnosis recorded at

-3Guru Nanak Dev Super Speciality Hospital, Tarn Taran is of physical assault with gunshot injury accompanied by an occipital fracture. 10.

Moreover, the investigation is still in progress and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be necessary for a fair and effective investigation.

11.

Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, the nature of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

12.

Consequently, the petition is, hereby, dismissed. 13.

However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove would not have any bearing on the merits of the case. (H.S.GREWAL) May 29, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No