CRM-M-38215-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 243 CRM-M-38215-2026 Date of Decision:21.07.2026 ROSHAN SINGH @ HAR ROSHAN NATH ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is second petition filed under Section 483 of "The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023" (corresponding to Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973) for grant of Regular Bail to the Petitioner in a case FIR No. 93 dated 20.05.2025 u/S 109 & 221 BNSS (and 132 of BNS, 2023 added lateron) (corresponding to Section 307 & 186 and 353 of IPC, 1860) and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at P.S. Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and any other sections added later on in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered against the petitioner on the statement of ASI Balwinder Singh, who received secret information that the petitioner was in possession of a large quantity of arms and ammunition. Acting upon the information, the police party installed a picket. At about 6:15 A.M., the petitioner was seen coming on motorcycle No. PB-91-F-0093. On seeing the police party, he allegedly RENU RAWAT 2026.07.29 14.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38215-2026 2 attempted to flee and, after falling from the motorcycle, took out a pistol from his bag and fired at the complainant with an intention to kill him. In self-defence, the complainant fired his official 9 MM pistol, while other police officials also fired shots, one of which struck the applicant on his right leg. The petitioner fell down, whereupon his pistol also fell near the motorcycle, and he was apprehended by the police. He was thereafter taken to Civil Hospital, Jagraon, where he was medico-legally examined. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no offence is made out against the petitioner under Section 109 of the BNS, as no injury was attributed to him and there is no MLR of any injured person. Rather, the petitioner himself sustained injuries in the alleged incident. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 20.05.2025 and was subsequently implicated in another FIR bearing No.89 dated 18.05.2025 under Sections 21, 25 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the NDPS Act (29 NDPS added lateron), by showing his nomination therein through a disclosure statement of a co-accused, despite the petitioner already being in custody. It is further argued that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.05.2025 and the investigation is still pending. Out of 17 cited prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined despite sufficient opportunities, while the remaining witnesses have not been served or examined. The trial is, therefore, likely to take considerable time to conclude, and there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering with the RENU RAWAT 2026.07.29 14.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38215-2026 3 evidence or influencing the witnesses. It is accordingly contended that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the petitioner has already undergone substantial custody, and he may be enlarged on regular bail. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 85, wherein, while considering the right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has been observed that expeditious disposal of criminal proceedings is also in public interest, primarily from the following perspectives: (a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction; (b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and (c) undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise. 6. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the bail rule and jail is an exception. 7. Notice of motion. 8. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He has opposed the prayer made by RENU RAWAT 2026.07.29 14.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38215-2026 4 learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 01 month and 27 days and is involved in 15 other criminal cases. On these grounds, dismissal of the present petition has been prayed for. The details of the cases pending against the petitioner are as under: Sr.No . FIR Dated Sections Police Station 1. FIR No. 81/2019 20.05.2019 Sections 306, 201, 342, 120-B IPC PS Sadar Faridkot 2. FIR No. 89/2025 18.05.2025 Sections 21, 25, 29, 61 NDPS Act; Sections 1985, 25, 54, 59 Arms Act PS Sadar Jagraon 3. FIR No. 7/2025 14.01.2025 Sections 25 Arms Act, 109, 132, 190, 191, 221 BNS PS Smaalsar 4. FIR No. 95/2026 21.02.2026 Sections 21(C), 27- A, 29 NDPS Act PS City Faridkot 5. FIR No. 14 22.02.2020 Sections 25 Arms Act, 120-B IPC PS GRPS Patiala 6. FIR No. 94/2019 11.06.2019 Sections 25 Arms Act PS Sadar Faridkot 7. FIR No. 168 31.12.2019 Section 188 IPC, Section 52-A Prisons Act PS Cantt. Bathinda RENU RAWAT 2026.07.29 14.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38215-2026 5 8. FIR No. 50 09.05.2019 Sections 302/392 IPC, Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act PS Nehianwala 9. FIR No. 52/2022 21.07.2022 Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Sadiq 10.FIR No. 46 23.06.2023 Sections 302/212/120-B IPC PS Talwandi Bhai Ki 11.FIR No. 110/2019 08.06.2019 Section 304/394 IPC, Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act PS Haibowal 12.FIR No. 67/2022 26.05.2022 Section 25 Arms Act PS Lakhoke Behram 13.FIR No. 20/2024 04.03.2024 Sections 25/54/59 PS Sadar Phagwara 14.FIR No. 135/2024 03.09.2024 Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Sadar Faridkot 15.FIR No. 156/2021 17.05.2021 Section 52-A Prisons Act, 1894 PS Tripuri 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 21320 of 2025, titled Rajni Versus State of Punjab and Another Etc. decided on 20.05.2026 has observed as under: “15. Having regard to the aforesaid factors, we find that the High Court failed to duly appreciate the gravity and heinous nature of the offence alleged, involving the killing of a person by an armed mob using deadly weapons and causing injuries to the appellant. In offences of this nature, the Court is required to exercise a higher degree of caution and circumspection, RENU RAWAT 2026.07.29 14.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38215-2026 6 bearing in mind the nature of the accusations, the multiplicity of injuries inflicted, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the severity of punishment that may follow upon conviction. 16. The High Court, however, proceeded to grant bail on grounds which, in the facts of the present case, cannot be regarded as sufficient, namely, the period of custody undergone, which at the time of the impugned order stood at approximately 1 year and 11 months and has since increased to about 2 years and 8 months, and the delay in the progress of trial. Neither of these circumstances, standing alone, could have been determinative factors warranting the grant of bail when weighed against the gravity of the alleged offence, the active and specific roles attributed to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, and their considerable criminal antecedents involving offences of a serious nature.” 11. In the present case, having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. As per the prosecution case, upon being intercepted by the police party, the petitioner allegedly attempted to flee from the spot and, after falling from the motorcycle, took out a pistol and fired a shot towards the complainant/police party with an intention to kill. The petitioner was thereafter apprehended at the spot and, as per the prosecution, the firearm also fell from his hand. 12. The nature and gravity of the allegations, particularly the alleged act of opening fire upon the police party, cannot be brushed aside at the stage of consideration of the prayer for bail. The alleged conduct of the petitioner, if proved, reflects a serious and deliberate attempt to endanger the RENU RAWAT 2026.07.29 14.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38215-2026 7 lives of police personnel. Furthermore, the petitioner has criminal antecedents, which allegedly include offences of a serious nature, and his release on bail would give rise to a real and proximate risk of his tampering with the evidence or intimidating the prosecution witnesses. 13. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in number of cases as enumerated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for releasing the petitioner on bail. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajni's case (supra) also warrant a higher degree of caution and circumspection while considering a prayer for bail in a case involving such serious allegations. Accordingly, finding no merit, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (H.S.GREWAL) 21.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.29 14.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh