[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aliyakat Ali vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
103
1) CRM-M-49727-2025
Decided on : 11.03.2026
Kuldeep Singh alias Shiva . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
2) CRM-M-59519-2025
Gagandeep Singh Guddu . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
3) CRM-M-62010-2025
Aliyakat Ali . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Mohinder Singh Kathuria, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-49727-2025).
Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-59519-2025).
Mr. K.D.S. Sodhi, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-62010-2025).
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of one anticipatory bail petition, i.e.,
CRM-M-49727-2025, and two regular bail petitions, i.e., CRM-M-59519-
2025 and CRM-M-62010-2025, respectively, as all the petitions are
interconnected and have arisen out of same FIR. However, the lead case is
1 of 6
CRM-M-49727-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -2-
CRM-M-49727-2025.
2. CRM-M-49727-2025, has been filed by the petitioner - Kuldeep
Singh alias Shiva, under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438
Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.172, dated 29.07.2025,
under Sections 109 of BNS, 2023 and 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959,
registered at Police Station City Jagraon, Ludhiana.
3. In the aforesaid anticipatory bail petition, on 08.09.2025, this
Court, passed the following order:-
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident,
involving the firing of a shot at the glass door of the complainant's shop, is
stated to have occurred at around 2:00 p.m. on 28.07.2025. However, FIR
was registered only on the following day, i.e., 29.07.2025. It is further
submitted that there is no allegation of a second shot being fired, nor is
there any report of injury to any individual.
It is further contended that the petitioner has been named solely on
the basis of the disclosure statements of two co-accused persons, namely
Gagandeep Singh @ Guddu and Liakat Ali @ Ali, who themselves were
implicated only on 01.08.2025 i.e. four days after the incident through a
supplementary statement recorded by the complainant.
Learned counsel also contends that petitioner has no connection
whatsoever with the alleged occurrence and is willing to cooperate fully
with the investigation. He, therefore, prays that petitioner be granted
protection from arrest.
3. Notice of motion
4. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of
respondent/State.
5. Learned State counsel submits that upon examination of CCTV
footage from nearby locations, reviewed in reverse order from the time of
the alleged incident, the Investigating Officer has identified the petitioner
as the individual who, with a muffled face, arrived at the complainant's
shop and fired the shot. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved
in three other criminal cases, including offences of a heinous nature.
Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail as prayed for.
6. List on 25.09.2025.
7. In the meantime, status report/reply, if any be filed with an advance
copy to the petitioner.
8. Till the next date of hearing, arrest of the petitioner shall remain
2 of 6
CRM-M-49727-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -3-
stayed. However, the issue of the petitioner joining the investigation will be
examined after considering reply/Status report of the respondent/State."
4. Petitions CRM-M-59519-2025 and CRM-M-62010-2025, have
been filed by the petitioners, namely; Gagandeep Singh Guddu and Aliyakat
Ali, respectively, under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439
Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial, who have
been booked in a criminal case, i.e., FIR No. 172, dated 29.07.2025, under
Sections 109, 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959,
registered at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
5. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant - Parminder
Singh alleged that on 28.07.2025 at about 2:00 P.M., he was informed by his
nephew, Jaivir Ganda, about the alleged occurrence. When the complainant
returned to the shop after having lunch, an application was moved to the
police and on the next date, i.e., 29.07.2025, the FIR in the present case was
registered against unknown persons.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false case has
been planted against the present petitioners and that it is a case of no injury.
The petitioners have been in custody since 01.08.2025, having been arrested
on the basis of a supplementary statement dated 01.08.2025. It is further
argued that the story set up by the prosecution that the petitioners were
identified on the basis of CCTV footage is neither here nor there, as the
CCTV footage pertains only to the nearby area of the place of occurrence
and, therefore, on the mere basis of suspicion regarding their involvement in
the alleged firing at the shop, the petitioners ought not to be detained in
custody any longer.
It is further submitted that the investigation qua the petitioners
3 of 6
CRM-M-49727-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -4-
already stands completed and the recording of statements of the prosecution
witnesses is likely to take considerable time. Thus, learned counsel prays for
grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed two separate
custody certificates dated 11.03.2026 in CRM-M-59519-2025 and CRM-M-
62010-2025 in Court today, which are taken on record. The office is directed
to tag the same at the appropriate place.
Copies thereof have been handed over to learned counsel for the
petitioners.
8. Learned State counsel submits that after recording the
supplementary statement of the complainant, the petitioners were nominated
as accused and subsequently arrested. Their disclosure statements were also
recorded, wherein two more persons, namely Kuldeep Singh @ Shiva and
Kaka Chauhan, were nominated as accused. It is further submitted that
accused Kuldeep Singh @ Shiva, who has already filed an anticipatory bail
petition, i.e., CRM-M-49727-2025, was nominated on the basis of the
disclosure statements of the co-accused Gagandeep Singh @ Guddu and
Aliyakat Ali. As per the FIR, two muffled persons had allegedly fired at the
shop. In pursuance of the disclosure statements, recovery of weapons was
also effected.
However, the factual position asserted by learned counsel for the
petitioners and noticed here-above has not been disputed by learned State
counsel.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material available on record.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner -
4 of 6
CRM-M-49727-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -5-
Kuldeep Singh @ Shiva (in CRM-M-49727-2025) is directed to join the
investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the
Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be
released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by all the
conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
11. It is further directed that the petitioner shall hand over his
passport to the Investigating Agency or to the Court concerned, if he possess
the same. In case he does not possess any passport, he shall submit an
affidavit to that effect.
It is also directed that before leaving the country at any time
during the trial, the petitioner shall seek prior permission from the Court.
12. So far as, regular bail petitions, i.e., CRM-M-59519-2025 and
CRM-M-62010-2025, are concerned. Keeping in view the overall facts and
circumstances of the cases, it is noticed that the petitioners have been in
custody since 01.08.2025. FIR in the present case was initially registered
against unknown persons and the petitioners came to be nominated as
accused on the basis of the supplementary statement of the complainant. The
plea raised on behalf of the petitioners is that their alleged identification is
based upon CCTV footage of the nearby area of the place of occurrence and
that the case is one where no injury has been caused to any person. It is also
not disputed that the investigation qua the petitioners stands completed and
the trial of the case is likely to take some time to conclude. In view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, but without commenting upon the merits
of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners deserve
5 of 6
CRM-M-49727-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -6-
the concession of regular bail.
13. Consequently, prayer made in the petitions, i.e., CRM-M-59519-
2025 and CRM-M-62010-2025 are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be
released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa
Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
14. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly
or indirectly.
15. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected
to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.
16. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected
cases.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
March 11, 2026
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
