CRM-M-37403-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CRM-M-37403-2026 DECIDED ON: 13.07.2026 BALJIT SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. Gursimran S. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL) 1. Present 2nd petition, has been filed by petitioner – Baljit Singh, aged about 34 years, seeking anticipatory bail in cross version, i.e., GD No.27, dated 24.08.2024 (P-2), registered under sections 118(2) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 326 & 34 of IPC), in case, FIR No.187, dated 13.08.2024 (P-1), registered u/s 109 of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 307 of IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural. 2. First application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, was disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), granting interim protection to the petitioner, subject to the condition that he would join the investigation within 15 days and comply with the other conditions imposed therein. 3. On 27.09.2024, owing to a "No Work Day" observed by the Amritsar Bar Association, the matter was adjourned to 10.10.2024. LAVISHA 2026.07.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-37403-2026 2 4. On the adjourned date, i.e. 10.10.2024, neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared before the Court. Investigating Officer informed the Court that neither the investigation joined by the petitioner, nor cooperated with the investigating agency, and even, weapon allegedly used in the crime was yet to be recovered. Taking note of the petitioner's failure to join the investigation as well as there being no representation on his behalf, learned Additional Sessions Judge vacated the interim bail order dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-5) and dismissed the application. 5. There is another aspect of the case that, on the basis of compromise between the parties, in the present FIR case and also in the cross-version case, accused in the present FIR, filed one CRM-M-8678 of 2026, while the accused in the cross-version filed CRM-M-8898 of 2026, seeking quashing of the respective proceedings on the basis of compromise. However, both the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, vide orders dated 16.02.2026 (Annexures P-6 and P-7). In fact, due to the use of a firearm in the commission of the offence, Court was not inclined to quash the FIR. 6. Thereafter, again petitioner approached this Court by filing CRM-M-24550-2026, seeking anticipatory bail. However, said petition was dismissed ‘being not maintainable’, vide it’s order dated 01.05.2026 (Annexure P-8). However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail any other remedy as may be permissible in law. LAVISHA 2026.07.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-37403-2026 3 7. Thereupon, again petitioner filed second application for anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. By observing that there was no change in the circumstances, since the time of dismissal of the earlier application, and taking note of the petitioner's conduct in approaching the Court at his own convenience after having failed to comply with the earlier directions to join the investigation, learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide its order dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-9), dismissed the second anticipatory bail application, observing that entertaining such successive applications, without any change in circumstances, would amount a sheer wastage of valuable judicial time and encouraging the undesirable practice. 8. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner has once again approached this Court by way of the present petition, seeking concession of anticipatory bail. 9. Notice of motion. 10. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts an appearance on behalf of the respondent/State. 11. This Court has duly considered the entire factual matrix of the case, including the allegations contained in the FIR as well as the cross-version. As per the prosecution case in FIR No.187 dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) registered on the statement of Malkeet Singh (brother of the petitioner-Baljit Singh), both the parties are co-villagers residing in the same locality. Dispute had arisen over the dumping of manure waste (rudi). LAVISHA 2026.07.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-37403-2026 4 As per FIR, accused Sumandeep Singh, while advancing towards the petitioner's side, fired three shots from his pistol and this made the petitioner and his brother to run towards their house. However, Sumandeep Singh still fired the fourth shot, and it caused injury on the petitioner's left leg. Resultantly, he fell down on the ground. 12. In the cross-version (Annexure P-2), in which petitioner did not succeed in seeking the concession of anticipatory bail, allegation is that Malkeet Singh was armed with a gandasi and inflicted a blow on the left arm of Sumandeep Singh. 13. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, allegation is that he was empty-handed and merely raised a lalkara, exhorting his companions to teach the opposite party a lesson. Gulzar Singh and Jatinder Pal Singh are also unarmed, whereas Harjinder Singh was armed with a datar, and Jaspinder Kaur, though empty-handed, caught hold of Gurmeet Kaur (complainant therein) and slapped her. 14. Occurrence in the present case took place on 13.08.2024, and if the proceedings thereon, are examined chronologically, following aspects emerge: (i) Allegation of firing four shots from a pistol is exclusively attributed to accused Sumandeep Singh in the FIR case. In the cross-version, present petitioner is not alleged to be even armed with any weapon. (ii) As per case of the prosecution in FIR, it was the petitioner alone, who sustained a firearm injury on his left LAVISHA 2026.07.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-37403-2026 5 leg, and fell to the ground, whereas in the cross-version, except of the allegation that petitioner raised a lalkara to teach the opposite party a lesson, no overt act is attributed to him. (iii) On 10.10.2024 (Annexure P-5), Investigating Officer informed the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, that petitioner had neither joined the investigation nor cooperated with the investigating agency and even weapon used in the crime, is yet to be recovered. (iv) Whereas, allegations on record indicate that petitioner himself, is the one, who had suffered bullet injury on 13.08.2024, and within about two months thereof, he was directed to join investigation. There is nothing on record to indicate the nature of his medical condition or whether he was medically fit to appear before the Court or join the investigation on 10.10.2024, when neither he nor his counsel could come present during the Court proceeding. (v) Significantly, petitioner is not even alleged to be armed with any firearm, stick, danda, or any other weapon in the cross-version case. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to attribute non-recovery of any weapon to the petitioner. It appears that, in the absence of petitioner's counsel, learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not examine the factual allegations in its correct perspective. LAVISHA 2026.07.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-37403-2026 6 (vi) This Court, vide orders dated 16.02.2026 (Annexures P-6 and P-7), declined to entertain the compromise petitions filed by both the sides, apparently on technical considerations, particularly in view of the allegations involving the use of a firearm. (vii) It is also evident that the aforesaid factual aspects were neither specifically pleaded in the petitioner's earlier petition, i.e. CRM-M-24550-2026, nor the same were brought to the notice of learned Sessions Court, Amritsar, while filing the second application for anticipatory bail. 15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner appears to have suffered great prejudice, primarily on account of inadequate assistance rendered before the Courts at various stages of the proceedings. 16. Accordingly, in order to secure the ends of justice, present petition is disposed of, with the observation that, if the petitioner is medically fit and the dispute has, already been amicably settled between the parties, he shall be at liberty to file a fresh application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the competent Court, within a period of two weeks from today, after surrendering before learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 17. 17. Upon filing of such application, the Court concerned shall grant interim bail to the petitioner and shall also issue notice to the respondents for the limited purpose of verifying whether the dispute has LAVISHA 2026.07.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-37403-2026 7 genuinely been compromised between all the affected parties, including complainant and victims in the cross-version, who are admittedly residents of the same village. However, it is clarified that in case, the compromise is found to be genuine, or the Court is otherwise satisfied that petitioner did not play any active role in the occurrence, except the limited role noticed here above, the Court concerned shall consider the petitioner's prayer for regular bail on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier dismissal of his anticipatory bail applications. 18. A copy of this order shall be placed on record by the petitioner along with the bail application, as and when filed before the Competent Court. 19. With the directions recorded here above, present petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh