[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Masih vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-21229-2026 -1-
225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21229-2026
Date of decision : 24.04.2026
Ravi Masih .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Utkrant Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular
bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.112 dated 20.08.2025, under
Sections 109, 132, 221 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station
Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 20.08.2026, the police
party in connection with checking of suspected persons, was present in the
area of Village Lopa/Pakiwan, where a secret informer informed that one
Ravi Masih is coming towards Mir Kachana from the side of Dera Baba
Nanak Road on his motorcycle black coloured bearing No.PB-06-AF-
7510 and if barricading is laid, he could be arrested on the spot along with
the contraband. On receiving the information, the police reached the place
as disclosed and set the barricading. Soon a person was seen coming on a
MAMTA motorcycle as disclosed in the secret information. On seeing the police, he
abandoned his motorcycle and tried to hide under the bushes and started
firing upon the police party with intention to kill them. Keeping in mind
their and public safety, police opened back firing, on which, one bullet hit
that person on the back of his right leg. As a result, he got injured and fell
down with his pistol. He was caught and on asking, he disclosed his name
as Ravi Masih (present petitioner). Thereafter, he was sent to the Civil
Hospital, Gurdaspur for treatment. Request was made to take legal action
against Ravi Masih who with intention to kill the police party fired upon
them. Thus, the FIR was registered, investigaton commenced and
petitioner was arrested on the spot. On completion of the investigation,
challan was presented and charges were framed. Petitioner approached the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, praying for grant
of regular bail. However, after hearing counsel for the parties, the same
was declined vide order dated 09.01.2026. Hence, being aggrieved, the
petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.
3. It has been contended by learned Senior counsel that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has
submitted that it is the petitioner who has suffered bullet injury fired by
the police and there is no firearm injury suffered by the police officials at
the behest of the petitioner thus, the false implication of the petitioner is
writ large. He has contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since the
date of his arrest but till date, not even a single witness has been
examined. He has contended that once there is no prima facie case made
out against the petitioner, he deserves the concession of regular bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State however has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
He has submitted that there was a specific secret information about the
petitioner and on conducting the raid by the police, he opened fire on the
police and it is in retaliation when the police fired and petitioner got
injured. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of 18 prosecution
witnesses, none has been examined till date. He has placed on record the
custody certificate of the petitioner.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested in the present case
on 20.08.2025. Though there are allegations against the petitioner that he
opened fire on the police, however, admittedly, there is no injury suffered
by any police official. It is rather the petitioner who suffered firearm
injury with the fire made by the police. Custody certificate produced
would show that the petitioner has completed incarceration of 07 months
and 28 days as on 23.04.2026. Custody certificate further shows that
though the petitioner is involved in one more case, however, he has been
acquitted in the same. As submitted, out of 18 prosecution witnesses, no
witness has been examined till date.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by
both the parties before the trial Court. 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. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed
and the 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.
24.04.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
m.sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
