CRM-M-56005- 102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Shankar Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. (through video conferencing) Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition is the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in a cross case registered vide G.D. No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 3 FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar. 2. As per the record, the matter arises out of version and cross pertaining to the same occurrence dated 13.12.2021. FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 was registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar on the statement of Pal Singh son of Hazara Si party came armed with deadly weapons while the complainant side was present at the land in question and attacked them. In the said version, Shankar Singh, who is the petitioner in the present case, -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Aakash Juneja, Advocate for the petitioner. (through video conferencing) Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in a cross case registered vide G.D. No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 3 FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Ajnala, District As per the record, the matter arises out of version and cross pertaining to the same occurrence dated 13.12.2021. FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 was registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar on the statement of Pal Singh son of Hazara Singh. In the said FIR, it has been alleged that the accused party came armed with deadly weapons while the complainant side was present at the land in question and attacked them. In the said version, Shankar Singh, who is the petitioner in the present case, is shown to be on the complainant side and is -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-56005-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in a cross case registered vide G.D. No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 307 IPC added later on) in FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Ajnala, District As per the record, the matter arises out of version and cross-version pertaining to the same occurrence dated 13.12.2021. FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 was registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar on the statement of Pal ngh. In the said FIR, it has been alleged that the accused party came armed with deadly weapons while the complainant side was present at the land in question and attacked them. In the said version, Shankar Singh, who is is shown to be on the complainant side and is first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in a cross- case registered vide G.D. No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 07 IPC added later on) in FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Ajnala, District version pertaining to the same occurrence dated 13.12.2021. FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 was registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar on the statement of Pal ngh. In the said FIR, it has been alleged that the accused party came armed with deadly weapons while the complainant side was present at the land in question and attacked them. In the said version, Shankar Singh, who is is shown to be on the complainant side and is TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.27 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-56005- stated to have sustained injuries during the occurrence at the hands of the accused named in the FIR. 3. Thereafter, a cross 24.12.2021 on the statement of Amrik Sing Shankar Singh has been arrayed as an accused. It has been alleged therein that Shankar Singh was armed with a pistol and fired a shot, which hit Harjit Singh on the backside of his right thigh. Other co have inflicted injuries with datars, kirpans and baseball bats upon the persons of the complainant party of the cross side in FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 and is an accused in GD 24.12.2021 arising out of the same occurrence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the principal allegation against Shankar Singh in GD No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 is that he fired a shot from a pistol which hit Harjit Singh submitted that the said injury, i.e. injury No.1 attributed to the petitioner, has been declared simple in nature in the medico be dangerous to life and, therefore, accord ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted. It is further argued that co accused Pal Singh has already been granted bail in the said GD and another co accused Balwinder Pal Singh is also on bail, thus the case of the p is stated to be on parity with them. It is also urged that the cross vide GD No. 19 is nothing but a counter blast to FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021, in which the present petitioner is on the complainant side and had himsel injuries. -2025 (O&M) stated to have sustained injuries during the occurrence at the hands of the accused named in the FIR. Thereafter, a cross-version was recorded vide GD No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 on the statement of Amrik Singh son of Sohan Singh. In the said GD, Shankar Singh has been arrayed as an accused. It has been alleged therein that Shankar Singh was armed with a pistol and fired a shot, which hit Harjit Singh on the backside of his right thigh. Other co-accused in the have inflicted injuries with datars, kirpans and baseball bats upon the persons of the complainant party of the cross-case. Thus, Shankar Singh is on the complainant side in FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 and is an accused in GD 24.12.2021 arising out of the same occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the principal allegation against Shankar Singh in GD No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 is that he fired a shot from a pistol which hit Harjit Singh on the backside of his right thigh. It is submitted that the said injury, i.e. injury No.1 attributed to the petitioner, has been declared simple in nature in the medico-legal report. No injury has been opined to be dangerous to life and, therefore, accord ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted. It is further argued that co accused Pal Singh has already been granted bail in the said GD and another co accused Balwinder Pal Singh is also on bail, thus the case of the p is stated to be on parity with them. It is also urged that the cross vide GD No. 19 is nothing but a counter blast to FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021, in which the present petitioner is on the complainant side and had himsel -2- stated to have sustained injuries during the occurrence at the hands of the accused version was recorded vide GD No. 19 dated h son of Sohan Singh. In the said GD, Shankar Singh has been arrayed as an accused. It has been alleged therein that Shankar Singh was armed with a pistol and fired a shot, which hit Harjit Singh on accused in the cross-version are alleged to have inflicted injuries with datars, kirpans and baseball bats upon the persons of case. Thus, Shankar Singh is on the complainant side in FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021 and is an accused in GD No. 19 dated Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the principal allegation against Shankar Singh in GD No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 is that he fired a on the backside of his right thigh. It is submitted that the said injury, i.e. injury No.1 attributed to the petitioner, has been legal report. No injury has been opined to be dangerous to life and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted. It is further argued that co accused Pal Singh has already been granted bail in the said GD and another co accused Balwinder Pal Singh is also on bail, thus the case of the present petitioner is stated to be on parity with them. It is also urged that the cross-version recorded vide GD No. 19 is nothing but a counter blast to FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021, in which the present petitioner is on the complainant side and had himself suffered stated to have sustained injuries during the occurrence at the hands of the accused version was recorded vide GD No. 19 dated h son of Sohan Singh. In the said GD, Shankar Singh has been arrayed as an accused. It has been alleged therein that Shankar Singh was armed with a pistol and fired a shot, which hit Harjit Singh on version are alleged to have inflicted injuries with datars, kirpans and baseball bats upon the persons of case. Thus, Shankar Singh is on the complainant No. 19 dated Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the principal allegation against Shankar Singh in GD No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 is that he fired a on the backside of his right thigh. It is submitted that the said injury, i.e. injury No.1 attributed to the petitioner, has been legal report. No injury has been opined to ing to the learned counsel, the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted. It is further argued that co- accused Pal Singh has already been granted bail in the said GD and another co- resent petitioner version recorded vide GD No. 19 is nothing but a counter blast to FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021, in f suffered TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.27 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-56005- 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the occurrence is not denied and it is a matter of evidence as to which party was the aggressor. It is argued that specific and serious allegations have been levelled against Shankar Singh to the effect that he fired a shot from his pistol which hit Harjit Singh. Even though the injury has been declared simple in nature, the allegation in the cross shot with intention to kill. On that premise, it is contended that he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that this is a case of version and cross occurrence. In the cross specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner that he was armed with a pistol and fired a shot which hit Harjit Singh on the backside of his r Although injury No.1 attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple in nature, the allegations in the cross to kill. The fact that the bullet hit the thigh and not a more vital part of th appears, prima facie, to be a matter of chance. The nature of injury being simple does not, at this stage, conclusively negate the allegation regarding intention, which is to be gathered from the totality of circumstances and is essentially a matter for trial. 7. The plea of parity with co The role attributed to Pal Singh in the cross firing of a firearm. The present petitioner has been specifically attributed the act firing a pistol shot. The use of a firearm and the allegation of having fired at the injured person distinguishes his case from that of Pal Singh. Therefore, the case of -2025 (O&M) Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the occurrence is not denied and it is a matter of evidence as to which party was the aggressor. It is argued that specific and us allegations have been levelled against Shankar Singh to the effect that he fired a shot from his pistol which hit Harjit Singh. Even though the injury has been declared simple in nature, the allegation in the cross intention to kill. On that premise, it is contended that he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that this is a case of version and cross occurrence. In the cross-version recorded vide GD No. 19 dated 24.12.2021, a specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner that he was armed with a pistol and fired a shot which hit Harjit Singh on the backside of his r Although injury No.1 attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple in nature, the allegations in the cross-version are that he fired the shot with intention to kill. The fact that the bullet hit the thigh and not a more vital part of th appears, prima facie, to be a matter of chance. The nature of injury being simple does not, at this stage, conclusively negate the allegation regarding intention, which is to be gathered from the totality of circumstances and is essentially a The plea of parity with co-accused Pal Singh is also not persuasive. The role attributed to Pal Singh in the cross-version is distinct and does not involve firing of a firearm. The present petitioner has been specifically attributed the act firing a pistol shot. The use of a firearm and the allegation of having fired at the injured person distinguishes his case from that of Pal Singh. Therefore, the case of -3- Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the occurrence is not denied and it is a matter of evidence as to which party was the aggressor. It is argued that specific and us allegations have been levelled against Shankar Singh to the effect that he fired a shot from his pistol which hit Harjit Singh. Even though the injury has been declared simple in nature, the allegation in the cross-version is that he fired the intention to kill. On that premise, it is contended that he is not entitled to I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that this is a case of version and cross-version arising out of the same version recorded vide GD No. 19 dated 24.12.2021, a specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner that he was armed with a pistol and fired a shot which hit Harjit Singh on the backside of his right thigh. Although injury No.1 attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple in version are that he fired the shot with intention to kill. The fact that the bullet hit the thigh and not a more vital part of the body appears, prima facie, to be a matter of chance. The nature of injury being simple does not, at this stage, conclusively negate the allegation regarding intention, which is to be gathered from the totality of circumstances and is essentially a accused Pal Singh is also not persuasive. version is distinct and does not involve firing of a firearm. The present petitioner has been specifically attributed the act firing a pistol shot. The use of a firearm and the allegation of having fired at the injured person distinguishes his case from that of Pal Singh. Therefore, the case of Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the occurrence is not denied and it is a matter of evidence as to which party was the aggressor. It is argued that specific and us allegations have been levelled against Shankar Singh to the effect that he fired a shot from his pistol which hit Harjit Singh. Even though the injury has been version is that he fired the intention to kill. On that premise, it is contended that he is not entitled to I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is rising out of the same version recorded vide GD No. 19 dated 24.12.2021, a specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner that he was armed with a ight thigh. Although injury No.1 attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple in version are that he fired the shot with intention e body appears, prima facie, to be a matter of chance. The nature of injury being simple does not, at this stage, conclusively negate the allegation regarding intention, which is to be gathered from the totality of circumstances and is essentially a accused Pal Singh is also not persuasive. version is distinct and does not involve firing of a firearm. The present petitioner has been specifically attributed the act of firing a pistol shot. The use of a firearm and the allegation of having fired at the injured person distinguishes his case from that of Pal Singh. Therefore, the case of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.27 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-56005- the petitioner cannot be said to be granted bail. 8. The contention that the cross FIR is also a matter which requires appreciation of evidence during trial. At this stage, the Court is required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the allegations in the cross and the specific attribution of a firearm injury to the petitioner weighs against him while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail. 9. Considering the nature of the the petitioner of firing a pistol shot, and the stage of the proceedings, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case at trial. 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 27, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) the petitioner cannot be said to be on parity with the co The contention that the cross-version is a counter blast to the earlier FIR is also a matter which requires appreciation of evidence during trial. At this stage, the Court is required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on basis of the allegations in the cross-version. The occurrence itself is not denied and the specific attribution of a firearm injury to the petitioner weighs against him while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of the allegation, the specific role attributed to the petitioner of firing a pistol shot, and the stage of the proceedings, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- parity with the co-accused who have been version is a counter blast to the earlier FIR is also a matter which requires appreciation of evidence during trial. At this stage, the Court is required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on version. The occurrence itself is not denied and the specific attribution of a firearm injury to the petitioner weighs against him while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail. allegation, the specific role attributed to the petitioner of firing a pistol shot, and the stage of the proceedings, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail petition is dismissed. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE accused who have been version is a counter blast to the earlier FIR is also a matter which requires appreciation of evidence during trial. At this stage, the Court is required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on version. The occurrence itself is not denied and the specific attribution of a firearm injury to the petitioner weighs against him allegation, the specific role attributed to the petitioner of firing a pistol shot, and the stage of the proceedings, this Court is dismissed. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.27 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document