Karanjeet Singh Alias Karan v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 10.03.2026 Karanjeet Singh @ Karan D.R.

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) CRM-9167-2026 I.

This is application filed u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 r/w 482 Cr.P.C. for placing on record the compromise dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure A-1), and in view of judgment Annexure A-2.

II.

Allowed as prayed for. Documents, viz., Annexure A-1 & A-2, filed along with application are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

III.

CRM stands disposed of.

CRM-M-68645-2025 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

- 2 - Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Karanjeet Singh @ Karan D.R.

12.03.2025 109, 351(2), 190 of BNS, Cantonment Amritsar 2023, and 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 2.

The FIR in the present case has been registered at the instance of complainant - Harpal Singh @ Bhala. The alleged incident took place on 10.03.2025 at about 11:00-11:15 PM. As per the allegations, accused - Karan @ DR (petitioner herein) fired two shots from his pistol in the air and one shot towards the complainant - Harpal Singh @ Bhala, which hit the left side of his pelvic bone. Other co-accused, namely, (i) Ranjeet Singh @ Love, (ii) Balwant Singh @ Sodhi, and (iii) Bittu @ Bhaiya, allegedly extended threats and thereafter all of them fled away on their motorcycles after pelting stones & bricks on the complainant party. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the role attributed to the petitioner is that he allegedly fired two shots in the air from a pistol and one shot towards the complainant - Harpal Singh @ Bhala, which resulted in an injury on the left side of the pelvic bone of the complainant, which, according to the counsel, is a non-vital part of the body. It is argued that had there been any intention to kill, the injury would not have been caused on the pelvic part and the shot would have been targeted towards the upper part of the body.

Additionally, it is submitted that during the pendency of the present petition, the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably and, in furtherance thereof, a compromise quashing petition, i.e., CRM-M13291-2026 titled as "Karanjeet Singh alias Karan and others v. State of

- 3 - Punjab and another", has already been filed before this Court and is likely to be heard in due course. Thus, in view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 09.03.2026 in Court today. Same is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate places.

A copy thereof has been handed over to the opposite counsel. 5.

Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail, submits Section 109 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding Section 307 of IPC) is involved in the present case, due to the causing of injury with the firearm, no compromise can be arrived at between the parties and active role of the petitioner is very much clear with the allegations, so levelled in the FIR in question. Thus, he prays for dismissal of instant regular bail petition. 6.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the complainant endorses the submissions raised by the petitioner's counsel qua the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties and institution of compromise quashing petition, i.e., CRM-M-13291-2026 before this Court, and injured/victim(s) are ready to get their respective statements recorded qua the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. Thus, he pleads no objection, if petitioner is granted bail in the present case. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance. 8.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the allegation against the petitioner is that he fired two shots in the air and one shot towards the complainant - Harpal Singh @ Bhala,

- 4 - which resulted in an injury on the left side of the pelvic bone of the complainant. Petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2025. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the present petition, dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably and, in furtherance thereof, a compromise quashing petition, i.e., CRM-M-132912026 titled as "Karanjeet Singh alias Karan and others v. State of Punjab and another", has already been filed before this Court. Said factum has also been endorsed by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, who has expressed no objection if the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail.

9.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, but without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

10.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

11.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here-above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in

- 5 - accordance with law.

12.

Petition stands disposed of.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE March 10, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No