***

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 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.

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 coaccused. 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 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.

Petition allowed.

********