CRM-M-3060-2026 208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gurwinder Singh @ Baba State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. G.S.Minhas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition under Section 482 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 250 dated 15.12.2024, registered under Sections 109, 190, 191(3), 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms A Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar. 2. As per the prosecution version, the present FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Manmeet Singh @ Honey Chahal. It is alleged that on 15.12.2024 at about 1:00 PM, the complainant, along the house of Shivam at Mota Singh Nagar in connection with a compromise regarding a prior altercation involving Shivam. While they were present inside the room, Shivam went outside on the pretext of bringing tea and water. time, Shivam allegedly returned along with the present petitioner @ Baba and three unknown persons. It is alleged that 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Gurwinder Singh @ Baba VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. G.S.Minhas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section 482 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 250 dated 15.12.2024, registered under Sections 109, 190, 191(3), 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms A Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar. As per the prosecution version, the present FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Manmeet Singh @ Honey Chahal. It is alleged that on 15.12.2024 at about 1:00 PM, the complainant, along the house of Shivam at Mota Singh Nagar in connection with a compromise regarding a prior altercation involving Shivam. While they were present inside the room, Shivam went outside on the pretext of bringing tea and water. time, Shivam allegedly returned along with the present petitioner @ Baba and three unknown persons. It is alleged that -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3060-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. G.S.Minhas, Advocate for the petitioner. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 250 dated 15.12.2024, registered under Sections 109, 190, 191(3), 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police As per the prosecution version, the present FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Manmeet Singh @ Honey Chahal. It is alleged that on 15.12.2024 at about 1:00 PM, the complainant, along with his friends, went to the house of Shivam at Mota Singh Nagar in connection with a compromise regarding a prior altercation involving Shivam. While they were present inside the room, Shivam went outside on the pretext of bringing tea and water. After some time, Shivam allegedly returned along with the present petitioner Gurwinder Singh @ Baba and three unknown persons. It is alleged that Gurwinder Singh @ Baba of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 250 dated 15.12.2024, registered under Sections 109, 190, 191(3), 118(1) ct, at Police As per the prosecution version, the present FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Manmeet Singh @ Honey Chahal. It is alleged that with his friends, went to the house of Shivam at Mota Singh Nagar in connection with a compromise regarding a prior altercation involving Shivam. While they were present inside the some Singh Singh @ Baba TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3060-2026 was armed with a pistol. One of the unknown persons was armed with a revolver, another with a pistol, and one person was armed with a datar. 4. It is further alleged that exhortation, stating that they should be finished, otherwise they would not leave. Thereafter, the person armed with a datar allegedly inflicted the complainant with an intention to kill him and also caused another injury on his left hand. When the complainant tried to defend himself, allegedly fired a shot at him. One of the unknown persons also fired to kill. As a result of the firing, one shot allegedly hit the complainant on his left ankle, and another shot struck Karan (son of Tejinder Singh) on his stomach and right arm. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons pushed them room, closed the door and fled from the spot with their respective weapons while extending threats. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR has been registered on false and frivolous allegations and that the petition implicated due to previous enmity. It is submitted that even as per the prosecution version, the role attributed to the petitioner is exaggerated and doubtful. The complainant himself has admitted prior rivalry with other gangs, which shows tha the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. 6. It is further contended that the complainant is a habitual offender and is involved in a number of criminal cases, details whereof have been mentioned in the petition. The alleged victims Manm stated to be involved in multiple FIRs after the registration of the present case. It is argued that the present case has been lodged only to pressurize the accused persons in an old dispute and to compel them to comp 2026 (O&M) was armed with a pistol. One of the unknown persons was armed with a revolver, pistol, and one person was armed with a datar. It is further alleged that Gurwinder exhortation, stating that they should be finished, otherwise they would not leave. Thereafter, the person armed with a datar allegedly inflicted the complainant with an intention to kill him and also caused another injury on his left hand. When the complainant tried to defend himself, allegedly fired a shot at him. One of the unknown persons also fired to kill. As a result of the firing, one shot allegedly hit the complainant on his left ankle, and another shot struck Karan (son of Tejinder Singh) on his stomach and Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons pushed them room, closed the door and fled from the spot with their respective weapons while extending threats. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR has been registered on false and frivolous allegations and that the petition implicated due to previous enmity. It is submitted that even as per the prosecution version, the role attributed to the petitioner is exaggerated and doubtful. The complainant himself has admitted prior rivalry with other gangs, which shows tha the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that the complainant is a habitual offender and is involved in a number of criminal cases, details whereof have been mentioned in the petition. The alleged victims Manmeet Singh and Karanveer Singh are also stated to be involved in multiple FIRs after the registration of the present case. It is argued that the present case has been lodged only to pressurize the accused persons in an old dispute and to compel them to comp -2- was armed with a pistol. One of the unknown persons was armed with a revolver, pistol, and one person was armed with a datar. Gurwinder Singh @ Baba raised an exhortation, stating that they should be finished, otherwise they would not leave. Thereafter, the person armed with a datar allegedly inflicted a blow on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him and also caused another injury on his left hand. When the complainant tried to defend himself, Gurwinder Singh @ Baba allegedly fired a shot at him. One of the unknown persons also fired with intention to kill. As a result of the firing, one shot allegedly hit the complainant on his left ankle, and another shot struck Karan (son of Tejinder Singh) on his stomach and Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons pushed them out of the room, closed the door and fled from the spot with their respective weapons while Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR has been registered on false and frivolous allegations and that the petitioner has been implicated due to previous enmity. It is submitted that even as per the prosecution version, the role attributed to the petitioner is exaggerated and doubtful. The complainant himself has admitted prior rivalry with other gangs, which shows tha the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that the complainant is a habitual offender and is involved in a number of criminal cases, details whereof have been mentioned in eet Singh and Karanveer Singh are also stated to be involved in multiple FIRs after the registration of the present case. It is argued that the present case has been lodged only to pressurize the accused persons in an old dispute and to compel them to compromise, and that the injuries have was armed with a pistol. One of the unknown persons was armed with a revolver, raised an exhortation, stating that they should be finished, otherwise they would not leave. a blow on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him and also caused another injury on his Singh @ Baba with intention to kill. As a result of the firing, one shot allegedly hit the complainant on his left ankle, and another shot struck Karan (son of Tejinder Singh) on his stomach and out of the room, closed the door and fled from the spot with their respective weapons while Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR has er has been implicated due to previous enmity. It is submitted that even as per the prosecution version, the role attributed to the petitioner is exaggerated and doubtful. The complainant himself has admitted prior rivalry with other gangs, which shows that It is further contended that the complainant is a habitual offender and is involved in a number of criminal cases, details whereof have been mentioned in eet Singh and Karanveer Singh are also stated to be involved in multiple FIRs after the registration of the present case. It is argued that the present case has been lodged only to pressurize the accused persons romise, and that the injuries have TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3060-2026 been fabricated. Even as per the initial inquiry, one of the alleged injured had left the hospital without informing the police and the other was capable of making a statement. 7. Counsel further submits that the story s improbable, inasmuch as it is alleged that a single bullet hit the complainant at more than one place and also struck another person, which makes the prosecution version doubtful. It is also argued that the petitioner had ear learned Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed without assigning cogent reasons. 8. It is contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Jalandhar and there is no likelihood of his absconding or ta prosecution evidence. He is not a proclaimed offender. Though there was an earlier case registered against him in the year 2015, he stands acquitted therein. The petitioner undertakes to join the investigation as and when called, to abide the conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, and not to misuse the concession of bail, if granted. 9. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition and submits that the petitioner the FIR and in the statements of both the injured witnesses. It is argued that from the very inception of the case, the petitioner has been attributed a clear, direct and active role in the occurrence and has been shown to be one of the main assailants armed with a firearm. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner entered the room along with co the assault. He not only rai complainant Manmeet Singh @ Honey Chahal and injured Karanveer Singh with 2026 (O&M) been fabricated. Even as per the initial inquiry, one of the alleged injured had left the hospital without informing the police and the other was capable of making a Counsel further submits that the story s improbable, inasmuch as it is alleged that a single bullet hit the complainant at more than one place and also struck another person, which makes the prosecution version doubtful. It is also argued that the petitioner had ear learned Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed without assigning cogent reasons. It is contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Jalandhar and there is no likelihood of his absconding or ta prosecution evidence. He is not a proclaimed offender. Though there was an earlier case registered against him in the year 2015, he stands acquitted therein. The petitioner undertakes to join the investigation as and when called, to abide the conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, and not to misuse the concession of bail, if granted. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition that the petitioner Gurwinder Singh @ Baba is specifically named in the FIR and in the statements of both the injured witnesses. It is argued that from the very inception of the case, the petitioner has been attributed a clear, direct and he occurrence and has been shown to be one of the main assailants armed with a firearm. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner entered the room along with co-accused and unidentified persons and actively participated in the assault. He not only raised exhortation but also fired gunshots at the complainant Manmeet Singh @ Honey Chahal and injured Karanveer Singh with -3- been fabricated. Even as per the initial inquiry, one of the alleged injured had left the hospital without informing the police and the other was capable of making a Counsel further submits that the story set up in the FIR is inherently improbable, inasmuch as it is alleged that a single bullet hit the complainant at more than one place and also struck another person, which makes the prosecution version doubtful. It is also argued that the petitioner had earlier approached the learned Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed without It is contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Jalandhar and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is not a proclaimed offender. Though there was an earlier case registered against him in the year 2015, he stands acquitted therein. The petitioner undertakes to join the investigation as and when called, to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, and not to misuse the concession of bail, if granted. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition Singh @ Baba is specifically named in the FIR and in the statements of both the injured witnesses. It is argued that from the very inception of the case, the petitioner has been attributed a clear, direct and he occurrence and has been shown to be one of the main assailants armed with a firearm. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner entered the accused and unidentified persons and actively participated in sed exhortation but also fired gunshots at the complainant Manmeet Singh @ Honey Chahal and injured Karanveer Singh with been fabricated. Even as per the initial inquiry, one of the alleged injured had left the hospital without informing the police and the other was capable of making a et up in the FIR is inherently improbable, inasmuch as it is alleged that a single bullet hit the complainant at more than one place and also struck another person, which makes the prosecution lier approached the learned Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed without It is contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District mpering with the prosecution evidence. He is not a proclaimed offender. Though there was an earlier case registered against him in the year 2015, he stands acquitted therein. The by all the conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, and not to misuse the concession of bail, if granted. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition Singh @ Baba is specifically named in the FIR and in the statements of both the injured witnesses. It is argued that from the very inception of the case, the petitioner has been attributed a clear, direct and he occurrence and has been shown to be one of the main assailants armed with a firearm. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner entered the accused and unidentified persons and actively participated in sed exhortation but also fired gunshots at the complainant Manmeet Singh @ Honey Chahal and injured Karanveer Singh with TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3060-2026 the intention to cause their death. One bullet allegedly fired by the petitioner struck the complainant near his left ankle and foot an the stomach, while another shot caused injury to Karanveer Singh’s arm, clearly demonstrating the lethal and deliberate nature of the attack. 10. It is further contended that the role attributed to the petitioner is corroborated by the consistent statements of both injured witnesses, the medical evidence regarding firearm injuries and the recovery of empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner has a long criminal history, with several FIRs registered against him in the past under serious provisions including Sections 307, 395, 302, 120 under the Arms Act and SC/ST Act. Though in one case he may have been acquitted, the antecedents thus argued that in view of the gravity of allegations, the specific role of firing shots which actually hit the injured persons and his criminal antecedents, the petitioner does not deserve the e 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is attributed a principal and dominant role in the commission not vague or omnibus in nature petitioner fired gunshots which resulted in firearm injuries to the complainant and the other injured. The nature of injuries and the weapo an intention to cause death, attracting serious penal provisions. The role attributed to the petitioner is duly supported by the statements of the injured witnesses and the medical evidence collected during investigation. 2026 (O&M) the intention to cause their death. One bullet allegedly fired by the petitioner struck the complainant near his left ankle and foot and thereafter hit Karanveer Singh in the stomach, while another shot caused injury to Karanveer Singh’s arm, clearly demonstrating the lethal and deliberate nature of the attack. It is further contended that the role attributed to the petitioner is corroborated by the consistent statements of both injured witnesses, the medical evidence regarding firearm injuries and the recovery of empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner a long criminal history, with several FIRs registered against him in the past under serious provisions including Sections 307, 395, 302, 120 under the Arms Act and SC/ST Act. Though in one case he may have been acquitted, the antecedents reflect his propensity to indulge in violent crimes. It is thus argued that in view of the gravity of allegations, the specific role of firing shots which actually hit the injured persons and his criminal antecedents, the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is attributed a principal and dominant role in the commission not vague or omnibus in nature, rather, a clear assertion has been made that the petitioner fired gunshots which resulted in firearm injuries to the complainant and the other injured. The nature of injuries and the weapo an intention to cause death, attracting serious penal provisions. The role attributed to the petitioner is duly supported by the statements of the injured witnesses and the medical evidence collected during investigation. -4- the intention to cause their death. One bullet allegedly fired by the petitioner struck d thereafter hit Karanveer Singh in the stomach, while another shot caused injury to Karanveer Singh’s arm, clearly demonstrating the lethal and deliberate nature of the attack. It is further contended that the role attributed to the petitioner is duly corroborated by the consistent statements of both injured witnesses, the medical evidence regarding firearm injuries and the recovery of empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner a long criminal history, with several FIRs registered against him in the past under serious provisions including Sections 307, 395, 302, 120-B IPC and offences under the Arms Act and SC/ST Act. Though in one case he may have been reflect his propensity to indulge in violent crimes. It is thus argued that in view of the gravity of allegations, the specific role of firing shots which actually hit the injured persons and his criminal antecedents, the xtraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is attributed a principal and dominant role in the commission of the offence. The allegations are rather, a clear assertion has been made that the petitioner fired gunshots which resulted in firearm injuries to the complainant and the other injured. The nature of injuries and the weapon used prima facie indicate an intention to cause death, attracting serious penal provisions. The role attributed to the petitioner is duly supported by the statements of the injured witnesses and the medical evidence collected during investigation. the intention to cause their death. One bullet allegedly fired by the petitioner struck d thereafter hit Karanveer Singh in the stomach, while another shot caused injury to Karanveer Singh’s arm, clearly duly corroborated by the consistent statements of both injured witnesses, the medical evidence regarding firearm injuries and the recovery of empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner a long criminal history, with several FIRs registered against him in the past B IPC and offences under the Arms Act and SC/ST Act. Though in one case he may have been reflect his propensity to indulge in violent crimes. It is thus argued that in view of the gravity of allegations, the specific role of firing shots which actually hit the injured persons and his criminal antecedents, the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is attributed of the offence. The allegations are rather, a clear assertion has been made that the petitioner fired gunshots which resulted in firearm injuries to the complainant and n used prima facie indicate an intention to cause death, attracting serious penal provisions. The role attributed to the petitioner is duly supported by the statements of the injured witnesses and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3060-2026 12. This Court also cannot lose sight of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Multiple FIRs under serious offences have been registered against him in the past, which prima facie demonstrate his involvement in criminal activities. The plea that some of t active role attributed to the present petitioner. The gravity of the allegations, the manner of commission of the offence and the antecedents of the petitioner disentitle him from the discretionar 13. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present anticipat Gurwinder Singh @ Baba is hereby dismissed. 14. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 13, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2026 (O&M) his Court also cannot lose sight of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Multiple FIRs under serious offences have been registered against him in the past, which prima facie demonstrate his involvement in criminal activities. The plea that some of the co-accused have expired does not dilute the specific and active role attributed to the present petitioner. The gravity of the allegations, the manner of commission of the offence and the antecedents of the petitioner disentitle him from the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present anticipat Singh @ Baba is hereby dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- his Court also cannot lose sight of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Multiple FIRs under serious offences have been registered against him in the past, which prima facie demonstrate his involvement in criminal activities. accused have expired does not dilute the specific and active role attributed to the present petitioner. The gravity of the allegations, the manner of commission of the offence and the antecedents of the petitioner y relief of anticipatory bail. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present anticipatory bail petition filed by All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No his Court also cannot lose sight of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Multiple FIRs under serious offences have been registered against him in the past, which prima facie demonstrate his involvement in criminal activities. accused have expired does not dilute the specific and active role attributed to the present petitioner. The gravity of the allegations, the manner of commission of the offence and the antecedents of the petitioner Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory filed by All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document