Piara Masih Alias Shooter Vs State of Punjab

Th e present is a second petition u nder Section 439 Cr.P.C. see k ing grant of regular bail in FIR No.41 dated 25.04. 2 023, registered under Sections 3 07, 34 IPC and 2 5 /27/54/59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Dhariwal, Dis t rict Gurdaspur.

¶16

Th e FIR in question was reg i stered on the statement of the complainant R a jinder Kumar with regard to f i rearm injuries suffered by his son Amit Dhunna. T he FIR alleges that two unide n tified assailants fired gunshots a nd fled from the s p ot. The name of the present pet i tioner does not find mention in the FIR, nor is any s pecific role attributed to him th e rein.

¶17

Th e petitioner came to be no m inated at a later stage du r ing investigation, p r imarily on the basis of a disclo s ure statement allegedly suffere d by him after his ar r est in another case. Challan has since been presented, charges have been framed, a n d the trial is stated to be pendin g for prosecution evidence. 4. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has remained in cust o dy for a period of 0 2 years, 04 months and 30 days . TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.20 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-13079-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶19

Le a rned counsel for the petitione r has taken this Court through the entire factual n arrative of the investigation a n d has argued that the prosecu t ion story suffers fr o m serious infirmities, which pr i ma facie dilute the case against the petitioner.

¶20

It i s submitted that the petitioner i s neither named in the FIR no r in the initial statement of the complainant or t h e injured. Even the injured A mit Dhunna did n o t name the petitioner at the first available opportunity. T h is, according to le a rned counsel, creates a serious d ent in the prosecution version. 7. Th e petitioner has been nominat e d solely on the basis of his o wn disclosure state m ent, which was allegedly rec o rded after his arrest in some o t her case. It is a rgued that such disclosur e statements, particularly w h en uncorroborated, are weak pieces of evidence, t h e admissibility and probative v a lue whereof shall b e determined only during trial . Learned counsel submits that the investigation h a s travelled through multiple shifting versions. Initially, some o t her persons were s u spected, later, new accused wer e roped in and finally, the petiti o ner was nominated, allegedly to complete the chall a n within the statutory period. E v en assuming firea r m injuries were caused, the FI R does not specify which acc u sed fired the guns h ot, nor does it attribute any overt act to the petitioner. T he prosecution has thus failed to establish, at least prima facie, the specific role of the petitioner. It is a rgued that although one injury has been opined to be caused b y a firearm, the me d ical opinion does not conclusi v ely support the prosecution ver s ion insofar as attrib u tion of injury to a particular ac c used is concerned. 8. It i s further argued that the pet i tioner has been in custody since 16.08.2023. D e spite presentation of challan a nd framing of charges, only o ne TRIPTI SAINIwitness out of 2 9 has been examined so far. Th e trial is likely to take a long tim e to 2026.01.20 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-13079-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶22

conclude. The p etitioner has already undergo n e incarceration of more than t wo years and four m onths, which, according to le a rned counsel, amounts to pre- t rial punishment, es p ecially when guilt is yet to be e s tablished.

¶23

Pe r contra, learned State counsel h a s opposed the bail application w ith equal vehemence and has relied upon the s tatus report filed by the De p uty Superintendent o f Police, as well as the FSL/ba l listic report. 10. Th e offence alleged is under Section 307 IPC, involving fire a rm injuries, which by itself reflects the gravity o f the crime. The FSL report d a ted 30.10.2023 cle a rly opines that the cartridge c a ses recovered from the spot w ere fired from the c ountry-made pistol recovered from the petitioner in FIR No. 27 dated 26.05.20 2 3. This, according to the Stat e , establishes a direct forensic l ink between the pet i tioner and the crime. As per the disclosure statement, the petiti o ner along with co-a c cused Manga Masih fired gun s hots at the victim with an inten t ion to kill. The wea p on recovered at the instance of the petitioner is stated to have been used in the co m mission of the offence. The pet i tioner is involved in multiple o t her FIRs, including offences under the IPC, Arms A ct, and NDPS Act. This shows t hat the petitioner i s a habitual offender, and his r e lease on bail may pose a threa t to public order.G i ven the antecedents and the nature of allegations, there is a reasonable app r ehension that the petitioner ma y influence witnesses or indulg e in similar offence s if released on bail. This Cour t is conscious of the seriousnes s of the allegations and the fact that firearm inj u ries were caused to the vic t im. However, the g r avity of offence, though releva n t, cannot be the sole considera t ion while deciding a bail application under Section 4 39 Cr.P.C. 11. Th e following aspects weigh significantly with this Court. T he TRIPTI SAINIpetitioner was n ot named in the FIR, which re m ains a relevant circumstance at the 2026.01.20 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-13079-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶25

stage of bail. H is nomination is primarily bas e d upon a disclosure statement, the evidentiary val u e of which is yet to be test e d during trial. The petitioner has remained in c u stody for more than two ye a rs and four months. The tria l is progressing at a very slow pace, with only one witness examined out of 29. Continued inc a rceration, in the given circu m stances, would offend the set t led principle that b ail is the rule and jail is a n exception. While the crim i nal antecedents of the petitioner cannot be brush e d aside, it is equally settled t hat antecedents alone are not sufficient to deny b ail, particularly when the trial is unlikely to con c lude in the near future.

¶26

Th e apprehension of the State c a n be sufficiently safeguarded by imposing string e nt conditions. 13. Co n sidering the totality of f a cts and circumstances, wit h out expressing any opinion on the merits of the c a se, this Court is of the consid e red view that the petitioner has made out a case for g rant of regular bail. 14. Ac c ordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner P i ara Masih @ Shoo t er Masi is ordered to be rele a sed on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail a nd surety bonds to the satisfac t ion of the learned Trial Court/ D uty Magistrate. Th e petitioner shall appear before t he learned trial Court on each a nd every date of h e aring and shall not misuse the concession of bail in any man n er. 15. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expressio n on the merits of th e case.

¶27

Pe n ding application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

¶28

January 20, 202 6 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Speaki n g Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶29

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.20 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Piara Masih Alias Shooter v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piara Masih Alias Shooter v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manju Aggarwal and Another Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Narinder Kumar Grover Vs State of Punjab

Arun Alias Rana Vs the State of Haryana and Others

Mohammad Sheetal Saife Mahant Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Umesh Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another