CRM-M-38135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (223) GURPREET SINGH ALAIS GOPI STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 159 dated 21.07.2025, registered under Sections 109, 132, 221 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 353, 186 and 427 of the IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Pol Nagar, Mohali. 2. has been wrongly implicated in the present FIR and has no role to play in the alleged occurrence. It is contended that scapegoat and that the police officials themselves asked him to run away from the place where the petitioner was apprehended -1- 38135-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: GURPREET SINGH ALAIS GOPI Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 159 dated 21.07.2025, registered under Sections 109, 132, 221 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 353, 186 and 427 of the IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Balongi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the present FIR and has no role to play in the alleged occurrence. It is contended that scapegoat and that the police officials themselves asked him to run away from the place where the petitioner was apprehended IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38135-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 21.07.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondent ALOK JAIN Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab. The present petition has been filed seeking the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 159 dated 21.07.2025, registered under Sections 109, 132, 221 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 353, 186 and 427 of the IPC) and ice Station Balongi, District S.A.S. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the present FIR and has no role to play in the alleged occurrence. It is contended that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat and that the police officials themselves asked him to run away from the place where the petitioner was apprehended, whereafter they fired ……Petitioner ……Respondent regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 159 dated 21.07.2025, registered under Sections 109, 132, 221 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 353, 186 and 427 of the IPC) and ice Station Balongi, District S.A.S. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the present FIR and has no role to play in been made a scapegoat and that the police officials themselves asked him to run away , whereafter they fired MANJU 2026.07.23 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38135 shot at his leg and subsequently planted a .32 bore pistol upon him at the time of his arrest. 3. FIR No. 88 BNS, 2023 and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station IT City, SAS Nagar, Mohali had earlier been registered and wa accused Sachin was arrested. During the course of investigation, Sachin allegedly disclosed the names of Rajinder, Manpreet and the present petitioner. It is argued that the prosecution story, to the effect that when the police party attempted to arrest the petitioner he fired at them and, in retaliation, the police fired at him causing an injury to his leg, is false and fabricated. Learned counsel further submits that, be that as it may, the challan has already been presented However, since all the prosecution witnesses are police officials, they are not coming forward to depose before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for the last one year an therefore, prays for the grant of regular bail. 4. certificate and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender. It is submitted that five criminal cases are registered against the petitione of which he has been granted bail in three cases and is facing trial therein. It is further argued that -2- 38135-2026 (O&M) at his leg and subsequently planted a .32 bore pistol upon him at the time of his arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in fact, dated 11.07.2025 under Sections 125, 351(2) BNS, 2023 and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station IT City, SAS Nagar, had earlier been registered and wa accused Sachin was arrested. During the course of investigation, Sachin allegedly disclosed the names of Rajinder, Manpreet and the present petitioner. It is argued that the prosecution story, to the effect that when the ce party attempted to arrest the petitioner he fired at them and, in retaliation, the police fired at him causing an injury to his leg, is false and fabricated. Learned counsel further submits that, be that as it may, the challan has already been presented and charges have been framed. However, since all the prosecution witnesses are police officials, they are not coming forward to depose before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for the last one year an therefore, prays for the grant of regular bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender. It is submitted that five criminal cases are registered against the petitione of which he has been granted bail in three cases and is facing trial therein. It is further argued that the petitioner has continuously abused the at his leg and subsequently planted a .32 bore pistol upon him at the Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in fact, dated 11.07.2025 under Sections 125, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station IT City, SAS Nagar, had earlier been registered and was under investigation, wherein accused Sachin was arrested. During the course of investigation, Sachin allegedly disclosed the names of Rajinder, Manpreet and the present petitioner. It is argued that the prosecution story, to the effect that when the ce party attempted to arrest the petitioner he fired at them and, in retaliation, the police fired at him causing an injury to his leg, is false and fabricated. Learned counsel further submits that, be that as it may, the and charges have been framed. However, since all the prosecution witnesses are police officials, they are not coming forward to depose before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for the last one year and, therefore, prays for the grant of regular bail. , learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender. It is submitted that five criminal cases are registered against the petitioner, out of which he has been granted bail in three cases and is facing trial therein. It the petitioner has continuously abused the concession at his leg and subsequently planted a .32 bore pistol upon him at the Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in fact, (3), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station IT City, SAS Nagar, s under investigation, wherein accused Sachin was arrested. During the course of investigation, Sachin allegedly disclosed the names of Rajinder, Manpreet and the present petitioner. It is argued that the prosecution story, to the effect that when the ce party attempted to arrest the petitioner he fired at them and, in retaliation, the police fired at him causing an injury to his leg, is false and fabricated. Learned counsel further submits that, be that as it may, the and charges have been framed. However, since all the prosecution witnesses are police officials, they are not coming forward to depose before the learned trial Court. It is further d, , learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender. It is r, out of which he has been granted bail in three cases and is facing trial therein. It concession MANJU 2026.07.23 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38135 of bail granted by the Courts activities. 5. 6. nature, as he is alleged to have attacked the police party when they attempted to arrest him in connection with FIR No. 88. criminal antecedents of the petitioner are also a significant factor, inasmuch as he is facing trial in several other cases involving serious offences, including offences under the Arms Act. The fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for almost o to grant him the concession of regular bail, particularly repeated involvement in 7. petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 8. July 21, 2026 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -3- 38135-2026 (O&M) of bail granted by the Courts and continues to indulge in such criminal Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The allegations against the petitioner are nature, as he is alleged to have attacked the police party when they attempted to arrest him in connection with FIR No. 88. criminal antecedents of the petitioner are also a significant factor, inasmuch as he is facing trial in several other cases involving serious offences, including offences under the Arms Act. The fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for almost one year, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to grant him the concession of regular bail, particularly repeated involvement in various criminal cases. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. July 21, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Reportable:- Yes/No and continues to indulge in such criminal rd learned counsel for the parties at length. The allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature, as he is alleged to have attacked the police party when they attempted to arrest him in connection with FIR No. 88. Furthermore, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are also a significant factor, inasmuch as he is facing trial in several other cases involving serious offences, including offences under the Arms Act. The fact that the petitioner has ne year, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to grant him the concession of regular bail, particularly in view of his various criminal cases. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE and continues to indulge in such criminal serious in nature, as he is alleged to have attacked the police party when they he criminal antecedents of the petitioner are also a significant factor, inasmuch as he is facing trial in several other cases involving serious offences, including offences under the Arms Act. The fact that the petitioner has ne year, by itself, is not a sufficient ground in view of his In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present MANJU 2026.07.23 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document