Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh @ Rupinder Singh @ Bunty vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-2433-2026
207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2433-2026
Date of decision : 24.04.2026
Bhupinder Singh @ Rupinder Singh @ Bunty ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate; Mr. Armaan S. Brar, Advocate &
Mr. Bhavnish Kumar Wadhwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.271 dated 25.08.2025, under Sections 109, 132, 221, 324(4) of BNS; Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act and Section 21 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the Police party while on patrolling on 25.08.2025 in search of accused in FIR No.260 dated 18.08.2025 registered under Section 304 of BNS, received a secret information to the effect that in the area of Majat, the accused is coming on a motorcycle without any registration number, from the side of Morinda, with muffled face. At about 12 noon, a youngster with matching description was seen coming and on seeing the police party, he attempted to slip away by taking a slip road, however, he fell down. In the meantime, he took out a pistol from his dub (waist line of trousers) and fired gunshot towards the police team. The bullet hit the vehicle of the police party and in self defence, gunshot was fired with the service revolver and the accused was asked to surrender. However, he fired another gunshot which missed the police team and eventually, a gunshot was fired to subdue the accused which hit his right leg and slumped on the ground. The pistol also POOJA SHARMA 2026.04.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2433-2026 fell out from his hand and an electric weighing machine along with a polythene bag containing intoxicant power also fell out and he was apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Bhupinder Singh. He was suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, search was conducted. On conducting the search, 70 grams of Heroin and a pistol 32 bore alongwith 01 live 32 bore cartridge and 02 spent 32 bore cartridge shells were recovered from his possession. He failed to produce any license regarding possession of the same and hence, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on spot. The investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court vide order dated 01.12.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present petition for grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that he fired at the police party. He submits that it is the petitioner only who has suffered the firearm injury and no police official has suffered any injury. He submits that after the arrest of the petitioner, recovery of 70 grams of heroin along with one pistol of 32 bore, was planted upon him. He submits that the false implication of the petitioner is writ large. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars from the date of his arrest and till date only charges have been framed and no witness has been examined. He, thus, submits that the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. POOJA SHARMA 2026.04.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2433-2026
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has also opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the there was secret information about the petitioner. He submits that during the raid conducted by the police party, the petitioner opened fire on the police party and in retaliation the police officials also fired in which the petitioner got injured. He submits that 70 grams of heroin alongwith one pistol of 32 bore and 01 live cartridge was recovered from the petitioner. He, on instructions, has submitted that investigation is complete and charges have been framed. He has produced on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the allegations against the petitioner are regarding firing at the police party. The firearm injury, however, is suffered by the petitioner himself. The alleged recovery of 70 grams of heroin is admittedly a non-commercial quantity. The custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 07 months and 23 days as on 20.04.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 01 more case. As submitted before this Court, investigation is complete and charges have been framed.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.
7. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and POOJA SHARMA 2026.04.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2433-2026 petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8. In case the bail bonds are not furnished by the petitioner during the period of 07 days from today, then his further custody period after one week will not be counted in the present case.
24.04.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
POOJA SHARMA
2026.04.24 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document