Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karanveer Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-19927-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.231
CRM-M-19927-2026
Date of Decision:30.04.2026
KARANVEER SINGH ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (erstwhile Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 105 dated 26.05.2025, registered under Sections 109 and 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307 of IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Section 341(2) of BNS/ Section 473 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar (Rural).
2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as emerging from the prosecution version, are that on 26.05.2025, the complainant Balwinder Singh along with his son Rajinder alias Raja was present at their shop. It is alleged that three unknown muffled-faced persons arrived in a Swift car and, after a brief altercation, fired gunshots with the intention to kill the complainant. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. During ANU 2026.04.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19927-2026 2 the course of investigation, the petitioner was nominated as one of the assailants.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in custody for the last about nine months. He further contends that the challan has already been presented; no recovery is to be effected from him and the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is further contended that although Section 307 IPC/109 BNS has been invoked, no injury whatsoever has been caused to the complainant or any other person, and the case is admittedly a no-injury case.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and include firing of gunshots, thereby attracting provisions akin to Section 307 IPC/109 BNS, and that if released on bail, the petitioner may influence the witnesses or repeat the offence.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. A perusal of the material on record shows that no injury has been suffered by the complainant or any other person, much less any injury declared to be dangerous to life. The allegations are confined to alleged firing of gunshots. The petitioner is behind bars for the last about nine months, the investigation stands completed and the challan has already been presented before the competent Court. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period, particularly when the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. ANU 2026.04.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19927-2026 3
6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The 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/Duty Magistrate concerned.
9. It is clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ANU
2026.04.30 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh