IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 CRM-M No.8414 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 Paramdalip Singh @ Sukhchain Singh @ Pamma ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Simble, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 118 22.05.2023 Maqboolpura, Police Commissionerate, Amritsar 307 and 34 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (212, 216, 411 and 120-B of IPC added later on) 2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was regsitered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Ravneet Singh @ Sonu Mota alleging that on 21.05.2023, he along with his friends was coming out of a hotel after having dinner and was present at the hotel gate when 3-4 unknown MANJU 2025.03.28 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.8414 of 2025 -2- persons reached there in a white colour car which stopped near the complainant. Two persons alighted from the same. They were having pistols and started firing shots towards them with an intention to kill him. The complainant and his companions rushed for their rescue and managed to save their lives. Two of his companions Pardeep Singh and Satnam Singh also fired in air with their respective licensed weapons in their defence and then the assailants fled from the spot. By alleging that he could identify the assailants, he prayed for taking action. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Two persons namely, Kunal Mahajan and Bhupinder Singh were nominated as accused and were arrested. They suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which the petitioner and some other persons were nominated. The petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2023. Two pistols, nine live cartridges and one jammer with adopter were recovered from him. The investigation now stands concluded and challan has been presented before the learned trial Court. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not named in the FIR. He has been implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He is in custody since long. The co-accused Ajit Kumar @ Chaura, Suraj @ Happy, Satinderpal Singh, Abhishek Mahajan, Bhupinder Singh alias Laddi, Deepak Rathi and Sonu Goswami have since been extended benefit of bail. The trial is likely to take time. His MANJU 2025.03.28 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.8414 of 2025 -3- involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be given concession of bail. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2023. Trial is likely to take considerable time since most of the witnesses are to be examined. Though the petitioner is involved in seven other cases, however, he cannot be denied benefit of bail due to that reason. Many co-accused have already been extended benefit of bail. Keeping in view the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case lest they prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.03.2025 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2025.03.28 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh