CRM-M No.13790 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 CRM-M No.13790 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Sunil @ Nata ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. K.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.137 dated 31.07.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103, 109, 191(3) and 190 [Sections 115(2) and 324 added later on] of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. 2. The above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Balwinder @ Mithan’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 31.07.2024, when he along with ‘Mohinder Pal’, ‘Lovepreet @ Akash’, and ‘Rohit’ was returning from the Court Complex, Ferozepur, their car was intercepted on Ferozepur-Fazilka Road, by three vehicles, i.e. a black Scorpio, a white XUV, and a grey Alto- carrying several individuals. It was stated that ‘Sunil @ Nata’ (the petitioner MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.13790 of 2026 (O&M) 2 herein) was sitting on co-driver’s seat in the black Scorpio vehicle. According to complainant, the petitioner along with co-accused ‘Jaffar’, opened fire with their respective pistols with the intentions to kill them and in the said incident ‘Lovepreet @ Akash’ received fatal gun-shot injuries on his forehead and right side of his face, resulting into his death on the spot. It was furthr stated by the complainant that other occupants of their car, too, suffered injuries when their car subsequently lost control and dashed into a tree. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year, ten months and seven days, and that the trial is not taking place at an appropriate pace as despite lapse of more than one year and ten months, even the charge has not been framed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the petitioner is being prosecuted, merely on the basis of an evidence, which is either unreliable or inadmissible in law. 7. The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that the petitioner is a hardcore criminal who is already facing trial in more than 21 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.13790 of 2026 (O&M) 3 cases, including several cases pertaining to offences under Section 302 IPC and several cases under Section 307 IPC. According to learned State counsel one of the eye-witnesses, namely ‘Balwinder Singh’ has specifically named the petitioner as the person who was leading the team of assailants and fired gun- shot upon the deceased. The learned State counsel has further contended that in view of the past conduct of the petitioner, and also the gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to be benefit of bail. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: - i) that the petitioner has a very long criminal history, as he has been prosecuted in more than 21 cased including the cases for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC; ii) that in the present case there is specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner, supported by eye-witness account, that he was responsible for firing gun-shot and causing injuries on the person of deceased Lovepreet; iii) that total custody period of the petitioner is one year and ten months and in view of above mentioned facts and circumstances the above mentioned period cannot be treated to be a period which renders the petitioner eligible for bail on the ground of delay in trial. 10. Taking into consideration the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, the direct nexus of the petitioner with the commission of offence and the above discussed factors, it is hereby observed MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.13790 of 2026 (O&M) 4 that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the present petition deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. 11. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 06.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document