CRM-M-67720-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.107 CRM-M-67720-2025 Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 CHIMAN SINGH ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Deep Daman Mann and Ms. Vini Rana, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Kachura, Advocate for the complainant. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 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. 112, dated 15.06.2024, registered under Sections 307, 452, 380, 336, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur. 2. The present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Hardeep Singh, who alleged that on 14.06.2024 at about 8:30 a.m., while he was at his house, he heard noise at the main gate. Upon approaching, he saw several persons, namely Raj Singh, Bhag Singh, Chiman Singh (applicant), Sukhwinder Singh, Karan Singh @ Mor, Gurpreet Singh, Surjit Singh, Amarjit Singh, Bitu Singh, Mopi Singh, Manjit Singh, Sunita Rani, Surjit Kaur, Veero Bai, Harbhajan Singh, Amro Bai, Harman Singh, Mahinder ANU 2026.02.23 17:10 I am the author of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-67720-2025 2 Singh, Karamjit Singh, Harjinder Singh, Baljinder Singh @ Saini, Harmesh Singh, Sunil Kumar, Raman Singh and others, variously armed with firearms and sharp-edged weapons, who allegedly trespassed into his house after breaking the main gate. 3. It is alleged that Raj Singh raised a lalkara and Bhag Singh exhorted Chiman Singh (petitioner) to fire, whereupon Chiman Singh allegedly fired a shot from a 12-bore DBBL gun intending to kill the complainant, which hit his left hand. Thereafter, other co-accused allegedly caused injuries to the complainant and his nephew with weapons, damaged household articles, and removed CCTV and DVR from the premises. The assailants allegedly fled while firing shots in the air. The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and a firearm injury has been attributed to him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations against him are fabricated. It is argued that as per the prosecution version, he allegedly fired a shot which caused injury on the fingers of injured Hardeep Singh; however, the medical record shows only two small contusions (1×1 cm) with blackening, which could not have been caused by a distant firearm shot, thereby falsifying the prosecution story. It is further submitted that several persons initially named were later found innocent, which indicates that the complainant’s version is unreliable and exaggerated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is alleged he was carrying a gun belonging to his brother, which is inherently improbable and unsupported by credible evidence. He further asserts that he ANU 2026.02.23 17:10 I am the author of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-67720-2025 3 is willing to join investigation, cooperate with the investigating agency, and comply with all conditions imposed by the Court. It is argued that no recovery is to be effected from him, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and there is no likelihood that he will abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses if granted the concession of bail. 6. Learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and attributed an active role in the occurrence. It is further contended that the petitioner was armed with a 12-bore double-barrel gun and fired a shot at the complainant with intention to kill, which struck the fingers of the injured. The allegations are supported by the statement of the complainant as well as the medical record. It is further argued that the offence is serious in nature, custodial interrogation may be required, and in view of the gravity of accusations, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that serious allegations attracting offence under Section 307 IPC have been levelled against the petitioner. He was armed with a 12-bore gun, entered the house of the complainant and fired a gunshot which hit two fingers of the left hand of the injured. So far as, the argument regarding possibility of injuries is concerned, that is a matter of evidence to be examined at the stage of trial. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to doubt the manner of occurrence or the manner in which injuries were received, particularly when the MLR also reflects injuries on the fingers of the injured. The record further shows that it is a cross-case and relations ANU 2026.02.23 17:10 I am the author of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-67720-2025 4 between the parties were strained; nevertheless, at this stage the allegations specifically attribute firearm injury to the petitioner along with co-accused who allegedly entered the complainant’s house. In view of the gravity of allegations, the specific role assigned, and the nature of injuries, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. 8. However, anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 23.02.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ANU 2026.02.23 17:10 I am the author of this document Chandigarh