CRM-M-24143-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104+221 CRM-M-24143-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 19.05.2025 JAGJOT SINGH ALIAS BADSHAH ....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present : Mr. P.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG Punjab. Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) CRM-19935-2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Annexures P-6 to P-8 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CRM-M-24143-2025 1. Status report dated 17.05.2025 filed in the form of an affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Arguments heard. 3. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR (Annexure P-1) as under: SANDAL SHARMA 2025.05.23 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-24143-2025 (O&M) -2- FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 01 03.01.2025 109, 324(4), 351(2), 191(3), 190 BNS; 25 and 27 of the Arms Act Division No.6, Ludhiana 4. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case on account of party faction. He contends that neither any specific overt act nor any injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, while referring to the status report submitted by State has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had fired gunshots on the car of the complainant with intention to kill him. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the weapon and prayed for dismissal of the bail petition. 6. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that as per the case of prosecution on 02.01.2025 at about 08:00 PM, Jaswinder Singh along with his friend Mony Kashyap was sitting in the office of his cousin Amritpal Singh, then the petitioner along with his campanions namely Happy and Mony Sharma and one unknown person came in a car and started threatening and also gave abuses to them. The said Jaswinder Singh told the complainant about this incident, thereafter at about 10:00 PM, the complainant received a WhatsApp call from the petitioner threatening to kill him. On 03.01.2025 at about 02:00/02:30 AM, the SANDAL SHARMA 2025.05.23 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-24143-2025 (O&M) -3- complainant along with Gourav Chaudhary, Prince were going in their car then suddenly a bottle struck against their car and front glass of the car got broken. The complainant came out of the car and saw the petitioner along with his brother Navjot Singh and Manjot Singh and father Tejinder Singh along with 4-5 unknown persons throwing bottles and bricks over the car of the complainant. The petitioner fired three shots on the complainant with intention to kill him, out of which, one shot struck against the left side of bonnet of the car, while another shot struck against the conductor side door and third shot passed by the side of the complainant. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner to have fired gun shots on the car of the complainant from .32 bore revolver with intention to kill him. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the weapon used in the commission of offence and also to unearth the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner in committing the crime. 8. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of offence, it is observed that no case is made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, as a consequence, the petition is hereby dismissed. 9. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 19.05.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No SANDAL SHARMA 2025.05.23 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment