Sheru vs State Of Punjab

Manisha Batra, J.

Prayer in this second petition, filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 192 dated 19.08.2024, registered under Sections 115(2), 109, 125, 333, 351(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural, to which Sections 103(1) and 331(8) of BNS were added later. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 06.03.2026.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered on the statement of complainant Dilpreet Singh alleging therein that on 19.08.2024, at about 8:00 PM, he and his father Lakhwinder Singh were standing outside their house. The petitioner, armed with a pistol, reached there along with the co-accused, who were armed with pistols, datars and a dang, and they started abusing the complainant party. When they were stopped, co-accused Arjan Singh and Sajjan Singh fired in the air with their pistols. The complainant tried to snatch the pistol from Arjan Singh, on which co-accused Manna Singh attacked him on the head with a datar, and Arjan Singh struck his father on the head with a kara. On an alarm being raised, the assailants fled from the spot. While the complainant was going to report the matter along with his uncle Desa Singh, his uncle Balwinder Singh informed him on phone that the same persons had come to the house again and had fired with the intention to kill the family. Balwinder Singh, Amarjit Kaur and a minor girl received firearm injuries in this firing and were taken to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Amarjit Kaur succumbed to her injuries and Section 103 of BNS was added. The petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2024 and a country made pistol with one live cartridge was recovered from him. After completion of investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented before the Court concerned and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Though he is named in the FIR as carrying a pistol, no specific overt act of firing or of causing any injury has been attributed to him. The acts of firing in the air have been attributed to Arjan Singh and Sajjan Singh, and the injuries in the first occurrence to Manna Singh and Arjan Singh. The fatal firearm injury suffered by Amarjit Kaur has also not been attributed to him. It is argued that the alleged recovery of a country made pistol does not by itself show that this weapon was used for causing the fatal injury, as nothing connects it with the foreign body recovered from the dead body. Regarding the maintainability of the present petition, learned counsel has argued that there is a substantial change in circumstances, as co-accused Karan Singh @ Manna, Dilbagh Singh and Lakhbir Singh have been granted regular bail by this Court. Karan Singh @ Manna was granted bail even though a specific injury was attributed to him, and the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing. It is also argued that the petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2024. Investigation is complete, charges have been framed and 37 prosecution witnesses have been cited. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. The delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner and his further detention would amount to punishment before conviction. The petitioner is on bail in another case registered against him. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Detailed reply by way of affidavit of Yadwinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Attari, Amritsar (Rural) has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner was specifically named in the very first version of the complainant, armed with a pistol. He was named again by injured eye-witness Balwinder Singh, whose statement was recorded on 24.08.2024 and supplementary statement on 25.08.2024. As per this witness, the accused, after leaving the spot, assembled again and fired indiscriminately at the complainant side, with an intention to kill. During inspection of the spot, two empty cartridge cases of 45 Auto, one of 7.65 and one of 8 MM were recovered. The injury chart (Annexure R-1) shows that, as per the statement of injured Balwinder Singh, the petitioner was among the accused who fired gunshots at him with their weapons. As per the post mortem report (Annexure R-2), nine injuries were found on the dead body of Amarjit Kaur and the cause of death was laceration of brain due to injury No. 1, caused by discharge of firearm, which was necessarily fatal. Balwinder Singh received two injuries (Annexure R-3), which were later declared grievous, while the report of the ballistic expert is awaited. The minor injured has also supported the occurrence in her statement under Section 183 of BNSS. It is further argued that the petitioner cannot project himself as a passive spectator. He was a member of an armed unlawful assembly, which first assaulted the complainant side and then launched a second attack at the house. Merely because the fatal injury is alleged to have been caused by another member, his liability for the acts done in prosecution of the common object is not diluted. Hence, the plea of parity is untenable. It is also argued that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond or influence the prosecution witnesses. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions at considerable length, besides going through the material placed on record.

The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and to have gone to the house of the complainant armed with a pistol. After the first assault upon the complainant and his father, the assailants are alleged to have left the spot, and then to have returned to the house and fired upon the family members. Three persons received firearm injuries in this firing and one of them, Amarjit Kaur, lost her life. The petitioner is named in the FIR itself along with the weapon carried by him. The FIR, when read as a whole, also names him among the persons who came to the house for the second time and fired. He has further been named by injured Balwinder Singh, and the injury chart (Annexure R-1) records him among the accused who fired gunshots at this witness. A country made pistol with one live cartridge is stated to have been recovered from him. Thus, the plea that no overt act has been attributed to him cannot be accepted, at this stage.

The petitioner does not appear to be a mere bystander. He is alleged to have been armed with a firearm, and to have remained with the co-accused in both phases of the occurrence. The first attack had already ended when the assailants are alleged to have returned to the house with pistols. This conduct, the nature of the arms and the firing which followed, prima facie indicate his active participation in the occurrence. Therefore, the absence of a specific attribution of the fatal injury to the petitioner does not advance his case, at this stage. The plea of false implication has a direct bearing on the merits of the case, which cannot be looked into at this stage while deciding a bail petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS. Similarly, whether the recovered pistol was used in the occurrence and whether it is connected with the foreign body recovered from the dead body are questions to be determined during trial, particularly when the ballistic report is stated to be awaited.

Parity is not to be extended merely because the co-accused in the same FIR have been released on bail, and the role of each accused has to be seen. Lakhbir Singh was granted bail on 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), which was much before the withdrawal of the previous petition of the petitioner, and this order cannot be treated as a subsequent development. He was not named in the FIR, no overt act was attributed to him and nothing was recovered from him. Karan Singh @ Manna was granted bail on 06.03.2026 (Annexure P-4), the very date on which the previous petition of the petitioner was withdrawn. His role was of carrying a datar, and the injuries caused to Dilpreet Singh were opined to be simple and caused by a blunt weapon. It was in this context that he was held not to be at par with the active assailants, and that mere presence at the scene could not impute the same level of culpability to all the accused. This reasoning does not help the petitioner, who is not alleged to be merely present and is stated to have been armed with a pistol and to have taken part in the firing. Dilbagh Singh, who was granted bail on 03.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), is alleged to have carried a dang, and he was extended the concession on parity with Karan Singh @ Manna and on the period of his incarceration. None of these co-accused is shown to have been armed with a firearm. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable, and he cannot claim bail on the ground of parity.

As regards the delay in trial, it is true that the petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2024 and it is not shown that the delay is attributable to him. However, charges were framed on 21.08.2025. Thereafter, the zimni orders (Annexure P-7) show that examination-in-chief of Dr. Vishal Gaur was recorded in part on 05.02.2026, and that the learned trial Court has been issuing bailable and non-bailable warrants for securing the presence of the witnesses. Some of the dates were also affected by non-production of the accused from jail and the heavy pendency before that Court. Thus, it cannot be said that the trial has come to a standstill or that the prosecution witnesses are not being pursued. The period of custody undergone by the petitioner is no doubt longer than that of the aforesaid co-accused, but it cannot by itself outweigh the difference in role, keeping in view the gravity of the offences alleged. The injured witnesses are still to be examined and three co-accused are stated to be proclaimed offenders. One more FIR is also registered against the petitioner, though he is on bail in that case. In these circumstances, the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the petitioner, if extended benefit of bail, may abscond or influence the witnesses can also not be stated to be unfounded.

Keeping in view the discussion as made above, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is requested to take effective steps for securing the presence of the prosecution witnesses and to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.