PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant one is the second petition filed under Sec. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 17 dtd. 11/2/2024 registered under Ss. 386, 307, 506, 120-B of IPC and Ss. 25 (6) and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Ss. 482 and 411 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-55579-2024 has been dismissed vide order dtd. 26/3/2025.

(2.) The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Harjot Singh, who was running a shop alleging therein that on 11/2/2024, he was cleaning his shop at about 10:15 AM, when three muffled face youths came in a black colour motorcycle and started firing shots with a firearm at the flex board of his shop. Thereafter, one of them, handed over one paper slip to his assistant Ravi Kumar and then they fled away while firing shots towards Ravi, who had a narrow escape. On going through the paper slip, the complainant found that it was containing the writing 'Kaushal Choudhary Group 5 crore W.No. +393533401161". FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, accused Manisha wife of Kaushal Choudhary, who is a gangster was arrested. She suffered a disclosure statement. On 19/3/2024, on the basis of a secret information, accused Banwari Lal was nominated as such. He was arrested and suffered disclosure statement to the effect that on the asking of one Ghanshaym, member of Kaushal Choudhary gang, he along with the petitioner and another shooter had committed the offence of firing shots at the shop of the complainant. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. He was arrested on 13/4/2024. One mobile phone containing two SIM cards and two pistols were recovered from his custody. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, some other accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The disclosure statement of the co-accused, on the basis of which he had been implicated, cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He has been released in another case registered against him and the same is a new ground for seeking bail in this case. He is in custody since long. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail.