CRM-M No.48297 of 2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210 CRM-M No.48297 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.09.2025 Lovepreet Singh @ Love ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr.Raghav Soni, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. Mr. Manish Kansra, Advocate for respondent No.2. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 109, 125, 111, 190, 191(3) and 61 (added lateron) of BNS and under Sections 25, 25(6), 25(7)(i), 27 (Section 25 deleted lateron) of Arms Act, the FIR No.125 dated 04.10.2024, has been lodged in Police Station Sarhali (Sirhali), District Tarn Taran. The petitioner has been arrested in the above mentioned case as an accused. Since the petitioner is in custody, he has filed the present petition for the benefit of bail. This is first petition under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail. 2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came into being in response to a statement made by Harjit Singh who has stated that on 04.10.2024, at about 2.30 P.M. when he was going along with his son Avtar Singh @ Billa, the petitioner along with Gurjit Singh and 7- MANOJ KUMAR 2025.09.27 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.48297 of 2025 (O&M) 2 8 persons way laid him and with an intention to kill injured him with fire arm. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Since advance notice has already been served, Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab, appears on behalf of respondent-State, and waives service. 5. On behalf of State, the Learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner, and also the reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Patti, District Tarn Taran. The same be taken on record. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration for being in custody for a period of 5 months and 18 days, and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have already arrived at a compromise and as per contents of compromise, copy of which is placed on record (Annexure P-2), the gun shot was not fired by the petitioner. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that release of the petitioner on bail is not likely to cause any prejudice to the prosecution case. 8. Per contra, the learned State counsel has argued that there are very direct, specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner with regard to use of fire arm causing injury on the person of complainant. According to learned State counsel the petitioner has history of indulging in criminal activity and he has been prosecuted for another case also. MANOJ KUMAR 2025.09.27 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.48297 of 2025 (O&M) 3 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. A careful perusal of record shows that in the present case there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration for the decision of instant bail petition. They are:- i) that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration for being in custody for a period of 5 months and 18 days; ii) that the injured has already been recovered from injury and discharge from hospital; iii) that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner; iv) that the investigation and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; v) that the credibility of the statement of petitioner which served as foundation for the FIR is reflected from the fact that in his statement he has alleged that petitioner and Gurjit along with 7-8 other persons were involved in the commission of offence, but the FIR has been lodged against three person only; vi) that detention of the petitioner behind the bar is not likely to serve any purpose; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. 11. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid MANOJ KUMAR 2025.09.27 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.48297 of 2025 (O&M) 4 factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail and the present petition deserves to be allowed. 12. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed accordingly and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 13. It is, however, made clear that any observation made here-in- above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 26.09.2025 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2025.09.27 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document