Gurdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M No.40738 of 2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.40738 of 2025 Date of decision : 05.08.2025 Gurdeep Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. R. K. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

Ms. Aalima Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.170, dated 08.10.2024, under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3) & 190 of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana Rural. 2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Balvir Singh. It was alleged that on 06.10.2024, at about 09:30 P.M., when he was returning to his house, then, Gurdeep Singh (petitioner), Sandeep @ Singh Goli, Ghughi, Harmesh Singh @ Messi, Kuldeep Singh, Gora, Suraj along with two unknown persons came there on three different motorcycles and

desi katta from his pocket, threatened to kill the complainant. Sandeep Singh @ Goli was armed with pistol and he fired a shot in the abdominal of the complainant, on which he fell down. All the assailants on seeing people gather, fled away from the place of occurence on their motorcycles. Request was made to take legal action against all the accused persons. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana praying for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 12.03.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of bail. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner has only been alleged to have threatened the complainant with fire arm but there are no allegations regarding the firing. He has submitted that the investigation is complete and challan has been filed. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 27.12.2024. He has submitted that out of 13 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. He has submitted that during the investigation, a compromise has also been effected between the parties. She has further submitted that co-accused, namely, Harmesh Singh @ Messi has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 passed in CRM-M No.24220 of 2025.

deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has affirmed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that a compromise has been effected between the parties. 5.

Per contra, learned State counsel however has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner along with co-accused was part of the unlawful assembly. One of the co-accused had fired upon the complainant with firearm weapon. He submits that charges have been framed, however, out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is involved in other cases as well. He has endorsed the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025.

6.

Heard.

7.

On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was allegedly part of the unlawful assembly. Injury under Section 109 of BNS has been attributed to coaccused and not to the petitioner. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has completed incarceration of 07 months & 06 days as on 04.08.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 02 other cases, however in one of the case, he is on bail and in another case, he is not on bail. The petitioner is also punished under the Jail offence, however he has already undergone the sentence. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Harmesh Singh @ Messi has already been granted

effected betweeen the parties.

8.

The veracity of the allegations and counter allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 9.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. However, if the petitioner does not furnish the bail bonds within seven days from today, then his further custody period after one week will not be counted in this case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 05.08.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No