CRM-M-17708-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 CRM-M-17708-2026 Decided on :21.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh alias Sukha . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No. 172 dated 29.07.2025, under Sections 109 BNS( Section 307 IPC) and Sections 25/2/54/59 of Arms Act (Section 61(2) of BNS was added lateron), registered at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 2. Case of the prosecution, as set out in the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P-5), reads as under: “ In this case, FIR was registered on the statement of complamant Parminder Singh to the effect that he is running shop of jewellery under the name and style of Kanda Jewellers for the last twenty years On 28.7.2025 at about 2:00 PM he came to house for taking lunch and during this time his nephew Jaiveer Kanda was present at the shop. After taking lunch when he reached at the shop, there was gathering outside his shop. He inquired from his nephew Jaiveer Singh about the gathering. RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17708-2026 2 Then his nephew Jaiveer Singh informed that two young boys with muffled faces came and fired at him with intention to kill him. They shot fired towards his nephew as there was security glasses, therefore, the glasses were not hit but there was scratches on its _screen. He did not received any extortion or threat call from any person.” 3. During the course of investigation, on 01.08.2025, the supplementary statement of the complainant, Parminder Singh, was recorded, wherein he stated that he had come to know that the firing at Kanda Jewellers had been carried out pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by Gagandeep Singh @ Guddu and Aliyakat Ali, who were allegedly present in front of the stadium at village Dakha at the relevant time. Consequently, Gagandeep Singh @ Guddu and Aliyakat Ali were nominated as accused in the present case and were subsequently arrested. On 02.08.2025, accused Gagandeep Singh @ Guddu allegedly made a disclosure statement to the effect that he, along with Aliyakat Ali, had met Kaka Chohan and Kuldeep Singh, who instructed them to fire at Kanda Jewellers in consideration of a substantial monetary payment. Thereafter, during investigation, on 06.08.2025, police allegedly received a secret information that, prior to the firing incident on 28.07.2025, petitioner-Gurpreet Singh had conducted a recce of Kanda Jewellers. On the basis of the said information, petitioner was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while continuing his submissions, further contends that earlier bail application was dismissed primarily on the ground that the CCTV footage of the incident depicted the accused persons arriving at and leaving the spot after opening fire at RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17708-2026 3 the complainant's nephew, Jaiveer Singh. However, it is submitted that petitioner is not visible in the said CCTV footage at all. Learned counsel submits that petitioner subsequently implicated solely on the basis of a secret information with the allegation that he had conducted the reconnaissance of the place of occurrence and had informed the principal assailants prior to the commission of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody for a period of last 11 months and 9 days; is only 28 years of age, and is not involved in any other criminal case. It is also pointed out that the co- accused, namely Aliyakat Ali and Gagandeep Singh @ Guddu, who are alleged to have played a more active role in the occurrence, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-2). Accordingly, learned counsel prays for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that petitioner has played a vital role in the commission of the offence, as he had allegedly conducted the reconnaissance of the place of occurrence in advance and supplied the necessary information to the principal assailants, thereby facilitating the execution of the crime. He submits that petitioner was an active participant in the criminal conspiracy and his role cannot be viewed in isolation merely because he was not physically present at the spot at the time of the firing. RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17708-2026 4 Learned State counsel, however, does not dispute the fact that petitioner's involvement has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of secret information. Nevertheless, it is contended that, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner in facilitating the offence, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Thu, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Petitioner's alleged involvement is yet to be established by the prosecution during the course of trial, and the burden to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt squarely rests upon the prosecution. At this stage, it is not disputed that petitioner has been implicated in the present case only on the basis of secret information, and the veracity and evidentiary value of the material collected by the investigating agency shall be tested during trial. It is also a matter of record that co-accused, namely Aliyakat Ali and Gagandeep Singh @ Guddu, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-2). Furthermore, out of the total 14 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date. Petitioner is in RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17708-2026 5 custody for a period of last eleven months and nine days, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 10. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 21.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document