CRM-M-65564- 104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ravinder Singh @ Tota State of Punjab and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. S.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conferencing) Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 80 dated 10.05.2025, registered under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Beas, District Amritsar (Rural). 2. As per the prosecution version, the present FIR was registered on the statement made by the complainant alleging that on 09.05.2025 at about 6:30 PM, he had gone to the house of Gurdial Singh @ Billa Pardhan to mourn the death of his father-in-law. When he reached near the house of Gurdial Singh, two persons in the guise of Nihang Singhs came there on a motorcycle. The motorcycle was being driven by co-accused U was sitting as a pillion rider and was already known to the complainant. alleged that the petitioner fired a gunshot at the complainant with an intention to -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Ravinder Singh @ Tota VERSUS and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. S.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conferencing) Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 80 dated 10.05.2025, registered under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar (Rural). As per the prosecution version, the present FIR was registered on the statement made by the complainant alleging that on 09.05.2025 at about 6:30 PM, ne to the house of Gurdial Singh @ Billa Pardhan to mourn the death of law. When he reached near the house of Gurdial Singh, two persons in the guise of Nihang Singhs came there on a motorcycle. The motorcycle was being accused UP Nihang, whereas Ravinder Singh, the present petitioner, was sitting as a pillion rider and was already known to the complainant. alleged that the petitioner fired a gunshot at the complainant with an intention to -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65564-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. S.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 80 dated 10.05.2025, registered under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station As per the prosecution version, the present FIR was registered on the statement made by the complainant alleging that on 09.05.2025 at about 6:30 PM, ne to the house of Gurdial Singh @ Billa Pardhan to mourn the death of law. When he reached near the house of Gurdial Singh, two persons in the guise of Nihang Singhs came there on a motorcycle. The motorcycle was being P Nihang, whereas Ravinder Singh, the present petitioner, was sitting as a pillion rider and was already known to the complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner fired a gunshot at the complainant with an intention to This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 80 dated 10.05.2025, registered under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station As per the prosecution version, the present FIR was registered on the statement made by the complainant alleging that on 09.05.2025 at about 6:30 PM, ne to the house of Gurdial Singh @ Billa Pardhan to mourn the death of law. When he reached near the house of Gurdial Singh, two persons in the guise of Nihang Singhs came there on a motorcycle. The motorcycle was being P Nihang, whereas Ravinder Singh, the present petitioner, It is alleged that the petitioner fired a gunshot at the complainant with an intention to TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.25 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-65564- kill him, which hit on the left thi allegedly fired another shot which passed over the head of the complainant. The complainant immediately rushed towards the house of Gurdial Singh, who bolted the door from inside. On the basis of the afores complainant, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present It is submitted that the prosecution story is a concocted one and the petitioner has been roped in merely on suspicion. It is further argued that the weapon of offence has already been recovered from the co from the present petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant, Jugraj Singh, has executed an affidavit stating that the matter has been amicably compromised with the present petitioner. On the basis of the said compromise, prayer has anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition and submitted that serious allegations attracting the offence under Section 307 IPC (corresponding Section specifically alleged that the petitioner fired a gunshot which hit the left thigh of the injured and thereafter fired another shot with intent to kill him. It is further submitted that there is nothing on r Even if any affidavit has been placed on record, the complainant has not appeared before the Court in support thereof. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the matter has been genuinely compromised. offence, the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. -2025 (O&M) kill him, which hit on the left thigh of the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly fired another shot which passed over the head of the complainant. The complainant immediately rushed towards the house of Gurdial Singh, who bolted the door from inside. On the basis of the afores complainant, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present It is submitted that the prosecution story is a concocted one and the petitioner has been roped in merely on suspicion. It is further argued that the weapon of offence has already been recovered from the co-accused and no recovery is to be effected rom the present petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant, Jugraj Singh, has executed an affidavit stating that the matter has been amicably compromised with the present petitioner. On the basis of the said compromise, prayer has been made that the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition and submitted that serious allegations attracting the offence under Section 307 IPC (corresponding Section 109 BNS) have been levelled against the petitioner. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner fired a gunshot which hit the left thigh of the injured and thereafter fired another shot with intent to kill him. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to substantiate the alleged compromise. Even if any affidavit has been placed on record, the complainant has not appeared before the Court in support thereof. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the matter has been genuinely compromised. offence, the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. -2- gh of the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly fired another shot which passed over the head of the complainant. The complainant immediately rushed towards the house of Gurdial Singh, who bolted the door from inside. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the prosecution story is a concocted one and the petitioner has been roped in merely on suspicion. It is further argued that the weapon of offence accused and no recovery is to be effected rom the present petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant, Jugraj Singh, has executed an affidavit stating that the matter has been amicably compromised with the present petitioner. On the basis of the said been made that the petitioner be granted the concession of Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition and submitted that serious allegations attracting the offence under Section 307 IPC have been levelled against the petitioner. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner fired a gunshot which hit the left thigh of the injured and thereafter fired another shot with intent to kill him. It is further ecord to substantiate the alleged compromise. Even if any affidavit has been placed on record, the complainant has not appeared before the Court in support thereof. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the matter has been genuinely compromised. Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. gh of the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly fired another shot which passed over the head of the complainant. The complainant immediately rushed towards the house of Gurdial Singh, who bolted aid statement made by the Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner case. It is submitted that the prosecution story is a concocted one and the petitioner has been roped in merely on suspicion. It is further argued that the weapon of offence accused and no recovery is to be effected rom the present petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant, Jugraj Singh, has executed an affidavit stating that the matter has been amicably compromised with the present petitioner. On the basis of the said been made that the petitioner be granted the concession of Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition and submitted that serious allegations attracting the offence under Section 307 IPC have been levelled against the petitioner. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner fired a gunshot which hit the left thigh of the injured and thereafter fired another shot with intent to kill him. It is further ecord to substantiate the alleged compromise. Even if any affidavit has been placed on record, the complainant has not appeared before the Court in support thereof. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.25 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-65564- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. The allegations against the petitioner are of firing a gunshot at the complainant, which hit his left thigh, and thereafter firing another shot with an intention to kill him. The nature of the accusation and the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to the offence. 7. As regards the plea of compromise, the same appears to be only on paper at this stage. The alleged compromise has not been verified before the Court and the complainant has not app without due proof and verification, cannot be made the sole basis for granting anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of attempt to murder. 8. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and the attributed to the petitioner in causing a gunshot injury to the injured, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail. the present anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. 9. However the purpose of deciding the present petition expression on the merits of the case at trial 10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands February 25, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The allegations against the petitioner are of firing a gunshot at the complainant, which hit his left thigh, and thereafter firing another shot with an intention to kill him. The nature of the accusation and the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place prima facie indicate the seriousness of As regards the plea of compromise, the same appears to be only on paper at this stage. The alleged compromise has not been verified before the Court and the complainant has not appeared to affirm the same. Such a document, without due proof and verification, cannot be made the sole basis for granting anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of attempt to murder. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and the attributed to the petitioner in causing a gunshot injury to the injured, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail. the present anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for f deciding the present petition expression on the merits of the case at trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The allegations against the petitioner are of firing a gunshot at the complainant, which hit his left thigh, and thereafter firing another shot with an intention to kill him. The nature of the accusation and the manner in which the have taken place prima facie indicate the seriousness of As regards the plea of compromise, the same appears to be only on paper at this stage. The alleged compromise has not been verified before the Court eared to affirm the same. Such a document, without due proof and verification, cannot be made the sole basis for granting anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of attempt to murder. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the petitioner in causing a gunshot injury to the injured, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. , it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for and shall not be construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The allegations against the petitioner are of firing a gunshot at the complainant, which hit his left thigh, and thereafter firing another shot with an intention to kill him. The nature of the accusation and the manner in which the have taken place prima facie indicate the seriousness of As regards the plea of compromise, the same appears to be only on paper at this stage. The alleged compromise has not been verified before the Court eared to affirm the same. Such a document, without due proof and verification, cannot be made the sole basis for granting specific role attributed to the petitioner in causing a gunshot injury to the injured, this Court Accordingly, , it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for and shall not be construed as an disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.25 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document