[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tej Partap Singh Alias Aman Bhaiya vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 February, 2026
CRM-M-63348-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.106
CRM-M-63348-2025
Date of Decision: 27.02.2026
TEJ PARTAP SINGH ALIAS AMAN BHAIYA ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate and
Mr. Keshav Chaddha, 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 for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No. 139, dated 09.08.2025 registered under Sections
109, 190 and 191(3) of BNS, Section 238 of BNS (added later on) and
Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sadar, District
Police Commissionerate Amritsar, Punjab.
2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on
the basis of the statement of complainant Kamal Kumar, Ex-Sarpanch,
recorded by the Investigating Officer/ASI Rajbir Singh on 09.08.2025. It has
been alleged that on 08.08.2025 at about 11:30 p.m., the present petitioner
Tej Partap Singh alias Aman Bhaiya along with co-accused namely Peeta
son of Bablu, Nishan Singh, Kali, Dalip, Pawan Mobiles Wala, Veeru Dairy
Wala and 4-5 unidentified persons, all armed with deadly weapons, came
ANU
2026.02.27 16:26
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
opposite the house of the complainant. Peeta was armed with a pistol, Aman
Lambu was also armed with a pistol, Nishan Singh was armed with a kirpan
and the remaining companions were carrying other deadly weapons. They
allegedly attacked the house of the complainant by firing gunshots, as a
result of which the complainant's nephew Babu Ram sustained firearm
injuries. Out of two shots fired, one shot hit on the left side of the chest of
Babu Ram and another shot hit on his left thigh. Upon raising hue and cry by
the complainant party, the assailants fled away from the spot along with their
respective weapons. The injured was taken to the Civil Hospital for
treatment and on the basis of the aforesaid statement, the present FIR came
to be registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
allegations contained in the FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is
limited to being a member of the unlawful assembly and being armed with a
baseball bat with the alleged common object of attacking the house of the
complainant. It is contended that no specific overt act has been attributed to
the petitioner and no injury has been assigned to him. Firearm injuries
suffered by the injured have been attributed to co-accused who were
allegedly armed with pistols, whereas another co-accused was stated to be
armed with a kirpan. It is further submitted that the petitioner neither fired
any shot nor caused any injury to any person. Counsel has also argued that
co-accused namely Pawan Kumar, Dalip Kumar, Jasbir Singh and Nishan
Singh have already been granted the concession of bail and, therefore, the
case of the present petitioner stands on parity with the said co-accused. On
these grounds, prayer for grant of regular bail has been made.
ANU
2026.02.27 16:26
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
4. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the
petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly which came armed with deadly
weapons and attacked the house of the complainant during late night hours.
It is argued that the offence is serious in nature and involves use of firearms.
It is further contended that the CCTV footage placed on record prima facie
shows the presence of the petitioner along with other co-accused persons
shortly before the occurrence. According to the State, mere absence of a
specific injury attributed to the petitioner would not dilute his liability at this
stage, keeping in view the allegations of unlawful assembly and common
object.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the petitioner is that he was
allegedly armed with a baseball bat and was part of the unlawful assembly.
No specific injury has been attributed to him and no firearm injury is stated
to have been caused by him. Firearm injuries are attributed to other co-
accused. The petitioner is in custody since 15.08.2025 and has undergone
custody of six months and eight days. Investigation stands completed and
challan has been presented. Co-accused namely Pawan Kumar, Dalip
Kumar, Jasbir Singh and Nishan Singh have already been granted bail and
the case of the present petitioner stands on similar footing inasmuch as no
specific injury has been attributed to him. In view of the custody period
undergone by the petitioner, the nature of allegations and the fact that
similarly situated co-accused have already been released on bail, this Court
ANU
2026.02.27 16:26
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of
regular bail.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and petitioner Tej
Pratap Singh alias Aman Bhaiya is ordered to be released on regular bail
subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction
of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
7. However, anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
27.02.2026 JUDGE
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ANU
2026.02.27 16:26
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
