CRM-M-20632-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 212 CRM-M-20632-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.05.2025 Ranjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Supriya Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 37 dated 19.05.2024 registered under Sections 307, 148 and 149 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the injured complainant Ranjit Singh @ Gora son of Sukhdev Singh on 19.05.2024 alleging therein that there was some discord between Surjit Singh and Gurlal Singh. He had been called by both of them to mediate and on 18.05.2024, Gurlal Singh took him to village Assal Uttar MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20632-2025 (O&M) -2- i.e. the native village of co-accused Surjit Singh for securing a truce. When the complainant Ranjit Singh reached there along with Gurlal Singh, the present petitioner and co-accused Surjit Singh and ten other unknown persons were found to be present along with weapons. Bohar Singh made an exhortation and then the petitioner fired a shot with a pistol hitting the left thigh of the complainant, another shot was fired by him hitting at the same place. Co-accused Surjit Singh fired a gun shot again hitting the left thigh of the complainant. He was also assaulted by Bohar Singh who struck a blow with datar on his head. The cousin brother of co-accused Surjit Singh also struck blow with datar. On rescue alarm being raised by him, the assailants fled away. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On the same day, on the basis of statement recorded by Balwinder Singh, father of co-accused Surjit Singh, who too had sustained a firearm injury and was admitted in hospital, a cross case bearing DDR No. 28 dated 19.05.2024 was registered under Sections 148, 307, 452 read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2025. Investigation has since been completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, the complainant and his companions were the aggressors. The occurrence had taken place at the shop of co-accused Surjit Singh and the complainant party had reached there and assaulted him. It is a case of version and cross-version. A member of their party, namely Balwinder Singh, had sustained injuries at the hands of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20632-2025 (O&M) -3- complainant. The petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2025. Trial is likely to take time. His involvement in one more case cannot be made a ground to deny him the benefit of bail. Co-accused Surjit Singh and Bohar Singh have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too deserves the same benefit. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Status report has been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner and co-accused were the perpetrators of the crime. The petitioner had caused a fire arm injury on the person of the victim. This injury was obviously declared dangerous to life. Recovery of pistol has been effected from him. There are serious allegations against the petitioner. He has criminal antecedents. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly, they had caused injuries to the complainant. As per the allegations, the petitioner had caused a fire arm injury to the complainant. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2025. It is a case of version and cross-version. His involvement in other case cannot be considered a ground for denying him the benefit of bail MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20632-2025 (O&M) -4- in the given facts and circumstances. The question as to who was the actual aggressor has to be decided by the learned trial Court on thorough assessment and evaluation of the evidence to be produced during trial. His further detention would not serve any useful purpose. Similarly situated co- accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, as mentioned above. It is well settled proposition of law that the bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 29.05.2025 Waseem Ansari 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document