IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRM-M-28076-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.05.2026 Nirmal Masih ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Bikram Jit Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG Punjab. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 1. This first petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.100 dated 15.09.2025 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 117(2), 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. 2. Status report by way of affidavit dated 25.05.2026 on behalf of respondent(s)-State has been filed by the learned State counsel today in the Court and the same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 13.09.2025 at about 8:00 p.m., the complainant was standing in the street outside his house and was brushing his teeth. At that time, Bhoora Masih was standing nearby and spat MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.29 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 104 CRM-M-28076-2026 (O&M) towards the side of the petitioner, which led to an exchange of hot words between the parties. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile, Jeeta @ Kaka Masih armed with a revolver, the present petitioner armed with a pistol, Boori Masih armed with a datar, Sajjan Masih armed with a datar, Bunty Masih armed with a motorcycle chain, Karan Masih armed with a motorcycle chain, Love armed with a datar, Rahul Masih armed with a danda, Gogi armed with a datar, Rajji armed with a danda and Rubi armed with a danda reached the spot. According to the prosecution, Gogi Masih raised a lalkara exhorting the other accused persons to teach the complainant side a lesson for spitting towards their house. Thereupon, Jeeta @ Kaka Masih fired two gunshots with an intention to kill the complainant. The shots hit the complainant on his right arm as well as on the front and backside of his waist. It is further the case of the prosecution that upon hearing the sound of gunfire, Samuel Masih, who is the uncle of the complainant, along with Mahinder Masih, came to the spot and they too sustained injuries during the occurrence. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner in the present FIR and that the allegations levelled therein are vague, general and omnibus in nature qua all the accused persons. 5. It is further contended that, in fact, it was the complainant side which attacked the petitioner party with sharp-edged weapons, datars and dandas, as a consequence whereof members of the petitioner’s side also sustained injuries during the occurrence. Learned counsel submits that a cross-version with respect to the same incident already stands recorded vide MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.29 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 104 CRM-M-28076-2026 (O&M) DDR No. 13 dated 04.10.2025. 6. Learned counsel further argues that although the petitioner is alleged to have been carrying a pistol at the time of the occurrence, there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner had fired any shot or caused any firearm injury to any person. It is thus contended that the role attributed to the petitioner is distinguishable from that of the co-accused against whom the allegation of firing specifically exists. 7. As per the status report filed on behalf of the respondent-State in Court today, the investigation conducted thus far reveals that the petitioner was armed with a pistol during the occurrence and had fired two gunshots from the said weapon. It is further reflected in the status report that one of the shots hit on the right lateral wall of the abdomen in the right lumbar region, while the other shot caused injury on the right side of the abdomen of the injured. The investigation, therefore, prima facie indicates that the petitioner not only fired from the firearm wielded by him but that the shots so fired also resulted in firearm injuries to Satnam Singh. 8. Further, an eye-witness namely Mahinder Masih son of Piara Masih has also got his statement recorded before the Investigating Officer to the effect that it was the present petitioner who had fired two gunshots which struck Satnam Masih. 9. Thus, at this stage, the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates not only active participation of the petitioner in the occurrence but also a direct overt act attributed to him involving use of a firearm resulting in gunshot injuries in the abdominal region of the injured- Satnam Masih. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.29 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 104 CRM-M-28076-2026 (O&M) 10. The nature of allegations, the weapon used and the part of the body targeted, prima facie, indicate existence of an intention and knowledge attributable to the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations are not confined merely to presence at the spot but extend to the actual act of firing from a deadly weapon causing firearm injuries to the injured person. 11. No special circumstances existed in the present case as would satisfy this Court to extend the indulgence of anticipatory bail towards the petitioner. 12. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 26.05.2026 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.29 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document