Bittu Bhaiya v. State Of Punjab
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 10.03.2026 Bittu Bhaiya . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Akash Manocha, Advocate for Mr. Mehtab Singh Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 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:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.
Date Section(s) Police Station District Bittu Bhaiya 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, co-accused Karan @ DR 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) Karan @ DR, (ii) Ranjeet Singh @ Love, (iii) Balwant Singh @ Sodhi, and (iv) Bittu Bhaiya (petitioner
- 2 - herein), allegedly extended threats and thereafter all of them fled away on their motorcycles after pelting stones and bricks on the complainant party. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, except of issuing threats and pelting stones/bricks. He is in custody for the last about 07 months and 27 days. Nothing remains to be recovered from him and no incriminating material has been recovered during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the alleged use of firearm has been attributed solely to co-accused Karan @ DR.
Besides, two of the co-accused, namely, Ranjeet Singh @ Love and Balwant Singh @ Sodhi, have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2026, passed in CRM-M51621-2025, titled as, "Ranjeet Singh @ Love and another v. State of Punjab". Therefore, in view of the above and by claiming parity, learned counsel prays for grant of 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 that the allegations in the present case are serious in nature, as the complainant had sustained a firearm injury on the left side of his pelvic bone. It is further submitted that the accused persons had come together and acted in furtherance of their common intention and had also pelted stones and bricks upon the complainant party before fleeing from the spot. However, learned State counsel does not dispute the factual
- 3 - aspects noticed here-above, particularly the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, concession of regular bail granted to the co-accused, and the fact that the alleged firing has been attributed to co-accused Karan @ DR. 6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance. 7.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that no specific role of firing has been attributed to the petitioner and the allegation of use of firearm has been specifically attributed to co-accused Karan @ DR. The role assigned to the petitioner is limited to that of allegedly issuing threats and pelting stones/bricks along with the other accused. It is further not disputed that two of the co-accused, namely Ranjeet Singh @ Love and Balwant Singh @ Sodhi, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. The petitioner is in custody for about 07 months and 27 days and nothing remains to be recovered from him. Therefore, further detention of the petitioner for an indefinite period is not warranted, particularly when the trial is not likely to conclude soon. Accordingly, prayer for bail deserves consideration. 8.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and also considering the principle of parity, 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.
- 4 - 9.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
10.
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 accordance with law.
11.
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