CRM-M-73694- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Akashdeep Singh @ Kaju State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the second petition under Section 483 of the Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 24 dated 21.02.2025, registered under Sections 109, 191(3), and 190 of the BNS (corresponding to old Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural. 2. As per the allegations, the present FIR under Sections 109, 191(3), and 190 of the BNS along with Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Karamjit that on 20.02.2025, while her elder son Gagandeep Singh was present inside the house and her younger son Akashdeep Singh was standing in the chowk, about 6 unknown persons arrived on three motorcycles, encircled Akashdeep Singh, and attempted to forcibly take him away on a motorcycle. When he resisted, the said persons allegedly opened fire at him with an intention to kill. Upon her raising alarm, Akashdeep Singh ran to save himself foot. On hearin -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Akashdeep Singh @ Kaju Versus HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the second petition under Section 483 of the Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 24 dated 21.02.2025, registered under Sections 109, 191(3), and 190 of the BNS (corresponding to old Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police ation Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural. As per the allegations, the present FIR under Sections 109, 191(3), and 190 of the BNS along with Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Karamjit that on 20.02.2025, while her elder son Gagandeep Singh was present inside the house and her younger son Akashdeep Singh was standing in the chowk, about 6 unknown persons arrived on three motorcycles, encircled Akashdeep Singh, and ttempted to forcibly take him away on a motorcycle. When he resisted, the said persons allegedly opened fire at him with an intention to kill. Upon her raising alarm, Akashdeep Singh ran to save himself, however, one bullet struck his right foot. On hearing the commotion, local residents and Gagandeep Singh tried to -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-73694-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. This is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 24 dated 21.02.2025, registered under Sections 109, 191(3), and 190 of the BNS (corresponding to old Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police As per the allegations, the present FIR under Sections 109, 191(3), and 190 of the BNS along with Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Karamjit Kaur. It is alleged that on 20.02.2025, while her elder son Gagandeep Singh was present inside the house and her younger son Akashdeep Singh was standing in the chowk, about 6 unknown persons arrived on three motorcycles, encircled Akashdeep Singh, and ttempted to forcibly take him away on a motorcycle. When he resisted, the said persons allegedly opened fire at him with an intention to kill. Upon her raising however, one bullet struck his right g the commotion, local residents and Gagandeep Singh tried to Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 24 dated 21.02.2025, registered under Sections 109, 191(3), and 190 of the BNS (corresponding to old Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police As per the allegations, the present FIR under Sections 109, 191(3), and 190 of the BNS along with Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act was Kaur. It is alleged that on 20.02.2025, while her elder son Gagandeep Singh was present inside the house and her younger son Akashdeep Singh was standing in the chowk, about 6–7 unknown persons arrived on three motorcycles, encircled Akashdeep Singh, and ttempted to forcibly take him away on a motorcycle. When he resisted, the said persons allegedly opened fire at him with an intention to kill. Upon her raising however, one bullet struck his right g the commotion, local residents and Gagandeep Singh tried to TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.20 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73694- apprehend the assailants by pelting bricks, whereupon the assailants fled from the spot, leaving behind one revolver and motorcycle bearing No. PB02 3. It has been contended on behalf occurrence is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2025, whereas the FIR came to be registered on 21.02.2025, and as per the medico taken to the hospital only on 22.02.2025, which prima facie regarding the prosecution version and suggests that no such injury was inflicted upon the injured on the alleged date of occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated subsequently in a supplementary statement recorded after about two weeks of the incident, which renders his implication doubtful and an afterthought. Learned counsel submits that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the alleged firearm injury is stated to be on the foot of the injured, which is not assigned to the petitioner in any manner. It is further argued that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and nothing remains to be recovered from him. 4. It is also contended that the petitio about eight months and twenty days (approximately), the investigation stands completed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Learned counsel further submits that the main accused is already in continued incarceration of the present petitioner would serve no useful purpose. It is argued that the petitioner is neither a proclaimed offender nor involved in any other case and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tamper prosecution evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioner be released on regular bail. -2025 (O&M) apprehend the assailants by pelting bricks, whereupon the assailants fled from the spot, leaving behind one revolver and motorcycle bearing No. PB02 It has been contended on behalf occurrence is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2025, whereas the FIR came to be registered on 21.02.2025, and as per the medico taken to the hospital only on 22.02.2025, which prima facie regarding the prosecution version and suggests that no such injury was inflicted upon the injured on the alleged date of occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated subsequently in a supplementary statement recorded after about two weeks of the incident, which renders his implication doubtful and an afterthought. Learned counsel submits that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the alleged firearm ted to be on the foot of the injured, which is not assigned to the petitioner in any manner. It is further argued that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and nothing remains to be recovered from him. It is also contended that the petitio about eight months and twenty days (approximately), the investigation stands completed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Learned counsel further submits that the main accused is already in continued incarceration of the present petitioner would serve no useful purpose. It is argued that the petitioner is neither a proclaimed offender nor involved in any other case and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tamper prosecution evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioner be released -2- apprehend the assailants by pelting bricks, whereupon the assailants fled from the spot, leaving behind one revolver and motorcycle bearing No. PB02-ED-1968. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2025, whereas the FIR came to be registered on 21.02.2025, and as per the medico-legal record, the injured was taken to the hospital only on 22.02.2025, which prima facie creates doubt regarding the prosecution version and suggests that no such injury was inflicted upon the injured on the alleged date of occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated subsequently in a supplementary statement recorded after about two weeks of the incident, which renders his implication doubtful and an afterthought. Learned counsel submits that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the alleged firearm ted to be on the foot of the injured, which is not assigned to the petitioner in any manner. It is further argued that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and nothing remains to be recovered from him. It is also contended that the petitioner has been in custody for the last about eight months and twenty days (approximately), the investigation stands completed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Learned counsel further submits that the main accused is already in custody and, therefore, continued incarceration of the present petitioner would serve no useful purpose. It is argued that the petitioner is neither a proclaimed offender nor involved in any other case and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioner be released apprehend the assailants by pelting bricks, whereupon the assailants fled from the of the petitioner that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2025, whereas the FIR came to legal record, the injured was creates doubt regarding the prosecution version and suggests that no such injury was inflicted upon the injured on the alleged date of occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated subsequently in a supplementary statement recorded after about two weeks of the incident, which renders his implication doubtful and an afterthought. Learned counsel submits that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the alleged firearm ted to be on the foot of the injured, which is not assigned to the petitioner in any manner. It is further argued that no recovery has been effected ner has been in custody for the last about eight months and twenty days (approximately), the investigation stands completed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Learned custody and, therefore, continued incarceration of the present petitioner would serve no useful purpose. It is argued that the petitioner is neither a proclaimed offender nor involved in any ing with prosecution evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioner be released TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.20 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73694- 5. Per contra has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that serious and grave been levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that during his disclosure statement, the petitioner disclosed that co him about his dispute with the injured and had asked him to accompany him for the purpose of giving beatings to the complainant/injured. Acting upon the said disclosure, the petitioner along with other associates allegedly went to the spot where Sharanjit Singh handed over one pistol to him, while Sharanjit Singh himself was also a when the complainant raised objection while sitting on the motorcycle, co Sharanjit Singh fired upon him and one bullet hit the right foot of the injured. It is alleged that the pre fleeing from the spot, their associates pelted brickbats to facilitate escape. On these grounds, it is argued that allegations involving use of firearms and participation in a violent occurrence are serious in nature; that the petitioner was present at the spot and acted in concert with the co concession of bail. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court finds that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2025, whereas the FIR was registered on 21.02.2025 and, as per the medico legal record, the injured was taken to the hospital on 22.02.2025. This sequence of dates assumes si 7. It is further not disputed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and came to be nominated only in the supplementary statement recorded subsequently. As per the custody certificate, t -2025 (O&M) Per contra, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that serious and grave been levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that during his disclosure statement, the petitioner disclosed that co-accused Sharanjit Singh had informed him about his dispute with the injured and had asked him to accompany him for the purpose of giving beatings to the complainant/injured. Acting upon the said disclosure, the petitioner along with other associates allegedly went to the spot where Sharanjit Singh handed over one pistol to him, while Sharanjit Singh himself was also armed with a pistol. It is further the case of the prosecution that when the complainant raised objection while sitting on the motorcycle, co Sharanjit Singh fired upon him and one bullet hit the right foot of the injured. It is alleged that the present petitioner also fired from the pistol in his hand, and while fleeing from the spot, their associates pelted brickbats to facilitate escape. On these grounds, it is argued that allegations involving use of firearms and participation in ence are serious in nature; that the petitioner was present at the spot and acted in concert with the co-accused; and therefore he does not deserve the concession of bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the is Court finds that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2025, whereas the FIR was registered on 21.02.2025 and, as per the medico legal record, the injured was taken to the hospital on 22.02.2025. This sequence of dates assumes significance at this stage. It is further not disputed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and came to be nominated only in the supplementary statement recorded As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has been in custody fo -3- has filed the custody certificate and has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that serious and grave allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that during his disclosure accused Sharanjit Singh had informed him about his dispute with the injured and had asked him to accompany him for the purpose of giving beatings to the complainant/injured. Acting upon the said disclosure, the petitioner along with other associates allegedly went to the spot where Sharanjit Singh handed over one pistol to him, while Sharanjit Singh rmed with a pistol. It is further the case of the prosecution that when the complainant raised objection while sitting on the motorcycle, co-accused Sharanjit Singh fired upon him and one bullet hit the right foot of the injured. It is sent petitioner also fired from the pistol in his hand, and while fleeing from the spot, their associates pelted brickbats to facilitate escape. On these grounds, it is argued that allegations involving use of firearms and participation in ence are serious in nature; that the petitioner was present at the spot accused; and therefore he does not deserve the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the is Court finds that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2025, whereas the FIR was registered on 21.02.2025 and, as per the medico legal record, the injured was taken to the hospital on 22.02.2025. This sequence of It is further not disputed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and came to be nominated only in the supplementary statement recorded he petitioner has been in custody fo has filed the custody certificate and allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that during his disclosure accused Sharanjit Singh had informed him about his dispute with the injured and had asked him to accompany him for the purpose of giving beatings to the complainant/injured. Acting upon the said disclosure, the petitioner along with other associates allegedly went to the spot where Sharanjit Singh handed over one pistol to him, while Sharanjit Singh rmed with a pistol. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused Sharanjit Singh fired upon him and one bullet hit the right foot of the injured. It is sent petitioner also fired from the pistol in his hand, and while fleeing from the spot, their associates pelted brickbats to facilitate escape. On these grounds, it is argued that allegations involving use of firearms and participation in ence are serious in nature; that the petitioner was present at the spot accused; and therefore he does not deserve the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the is Court finds that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2025, whereas the FIR was registered on 21.02.2025 and, as per the medico- legal record, the injured was taken to the hospital on 22.02.2025. This sequence of It is further not disputed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and came to be nominated only in the supplementary statement recorded he petitioner has been in custody for TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.20 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73694- the last about eight months and twenty days (approximately). It is also a matter of record that the firearm injury on the right foot of the injured is attributed to co accused Sharanjit Singh and not to the present petitioner, and the main accused is already in custody. No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The investigation stands completed and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. 8. Without commenting upon the merits of the case and considering the period of custody was not named in the FIR, the delay in his nomination, and that no injury has been attributed to him, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would 9. Accordingly, the present bail ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Ma concerned and subject to usual conditions. 10. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. February 20, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) the last about eight months and twenty days (approximately). It is also a matter of record that the firearm injury on the right foot of the injured is attributed to co accused Sharanjit Singh and not to the present petitioner, and the main accused is eady in custody. No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The investigation stands completed and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some Without commenting upon the merits of the case and considering the period of custody undergone, the nature of allegations, the fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, the delay in his nomination, and that no injury has been attributed to him, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the present bail petition ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Ma concerned and subject to usual conditions. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- the last about eight months and twenty days (approximately). It is also a matter of record that the firearm injury on the right foot of the injured is attributed to co accused Sharanjit Singh and not to the present petitioner, and the main accused is eady in custody. No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The investigation stands completed and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some Without commenting upon the merits of the case and considering the undergone, the nature of allegations, the fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, the delay in his nomination, and that no injury has been attributed to him, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No the last about eight months and twenty days (approximately). It is also a matter of record that the firearm injury on the right foot of the injured is attributed to co- accused Sharanjit Singh and not to the present petitioner, and the main accused is eady in custody. No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The investigation stands completed and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some Without commenting upon the merits of the case and considering the undergone, the nature of allegations, the fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, the delay in his nomination, and that no injury has been attributed to him, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and gistrate TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.20 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document