Shankar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Th e present petition is the first p etition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Naga r ik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for g rant of anticipatory bail in a cr o sscase registered v ide G.D. No. 19 dated 24.12. 2 021 under Sections 323, 324, 3 26, 148 and 149 o f the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( S ection 307 IPC added later on ) in FIR No. 338 da t ed 17.12.2021 under Sections 3 23, 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC a nd Section 3 of t h e SC/ST Act, 1989, registere d at Police Station Ajnala, Dis t rict Amritsar.

¶16

As per the record, the matter aris e s out of version and cross-ver s ion pertaining to th e same occurrence dated 13.12.2021. FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2 0 21 was registered a t Police Station Ajnala, Distri c t Amritsar on the statement of Pal Singh son of H azara Singh. In the said FIR, i t has been alleged that the acc u sed party came arm e d with deadly weapons while t he complainant side was prese n t at the land in que s tion and attacked them. In the s aid version, Shankar Singh, wh o is the petitioner i n the present case, is shown to be on the complainant side an d is

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.27 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-56005-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶19

stated to have s u stained injuries during the occ u rrence at the hands of the acc u sed named in the FI R .

¶20

Th e reafter, a cross-version was recorded vide GD No. 19 d a ted 24.12.2021 on t he statement of Amrik Singh s o n of Sohan Singh. In the said G D, Shankar Singh has been arrayed as an accused. It has been alleged therein t hat Shankar Singh w as armed with a pistol and fir e d a shot, which hit Harjit Sing h on the backside of his right thigh. Other co-accuse d in the cross-version are allege d to have inflicted i n juries with datars, kirpans an d baseball bats upon the person s of the complainan t party of the cross-case. Thus, S hankar Singh is on the complai n ant side in FIR N o . 338 dated 17.12.2021 and i s an accused in GD No. 19 d a ted 24.12.2021 aris i ng out of the same occurrence. 4. Le a rned counsel for the petitione r has contended that the princ i pal allegation agai n st Shankar Singh in GD No. 19 dated 24.12.2021 is that he fir e d a shot from a pis t ol which hit Harjit Singh on t h e backside of his right thigh. I t is submitted that t h e said injury, i.e. injury No.1 a ttributed to the petitioner, has been declared simple in nature in the medico-legal r e port. No injury has been opine d to be dangerous to life and, therefore, accor d ing to the learned counsel, the ingredients of S ection 307 IPC are not attra c ted. It is further argued that coaccused Pal Si n gh has already been granted b a il in the said GD and another coaccused Balwinder Pal Singh is also on bail, th u s the case of the present petiti o ner is stated to be o n parity with them. It is also u r ged that the cross-version recor d ed vide GD No. 1 9 is nothing but a counter blast t o FIR No. 338 dated 17.12.2021, in which the pres e nt petitioner is on the complai n ant side and had himself suff e red injuries.

¶21

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.27 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-56005-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶23

Pe r contra, learned State coun s el has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bai l and submitted that the occurr e nce is not denied and it is a m a tter of evidence as to which party was the aggre s sor. It is argued that specific a nd serious allegati o ns have been levelled against S hankar Singh to the effect tha t he fired a shot fro m his pistol which hit Harjit Sin g h. Even though the injury has been declared simpl e in nature, the allegation in th e cross-version is that he fired the shot with intent i on to kill. On that premise, it is contended that he is not entitle d to the concession o f anticipatory bail.

¶24

I have considered the rival submi s sions and perused the record. I t is not in dispute t h at this is a case of version and c r oss-version arising out of the s a me occurrence. In the cross-version recorded vid e GD No. 19 dated 24.12.202 1 , a specific role ha s been attributed to the present p etitioner that he was armed wi t h a pistol and fired a shot which hit Harjit Singh on the backside of his right th i gh. Although injur y No.1 attributed to the petiti o ner has been declared simpl e in nature, the alle g ations in the cross-version are t hat he fired the shot with inten t ion to kill. The fac t that the bullet hit the thigh an d not a more vital part of the b o dy appears, prima facie, to be a matter of chance. The nature of injury being si m ple does not, at t h is stage, conclusively negate t he allegation regarding intent i on, which is to be gathered from the totality of circumstances and is essentially a matter for trial.

¶25

Th e plea of parity with co-accuse d Pal Singh is also not persuas i ve. The role attribu t ed to Pal Singh in the cross-ver s ion is distinct and does not inv o lve firing of a firea r m. The present petitioner has b e en specifically attributed the act of firing a pistol s h ot. The use of a firearm and t h e allegation of having fired at the injured person d istinguishes his case from that o f Pal Singh. Therefore, the cas e of

¶26

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.27 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-56005-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶28

the petitioner c a nnot be said to be on parity w ith the co-accused who have been

¶29

granted bail.

¶30

Th e contention that the cross-vers i on is a counter blast to the ea r lier FIR is also a m atter which requires appreciati o n of evidence during trial. At t his stage, the Cour t is required to examine whethe r a prima facie case is made ou t on the basis of the allegations in the cross-version. The occurrence itself is not de n ied and the specific attribution of a firearm injury to the petitioner weighs against h im while consideri n g the prayer for anticipatory ba i l.

¶31

Co n sidering the nature of the alle g ation, the specific role attribute d to the petitioner o f firing a pistol shot, and the s t age of the proceedings, this C o urt does not find it t o be a fit case for grant of antic i patory bail. 10. Ac c ordingly, the present antici p atory bail petition is dismis s ed. Nothing observ e d herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case at trial.

¶32

Al l pending miscellaneous applica t ion(s), if any, stands disposed o f .

¶33

February 27, 20 2 6 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Wheth e r reportable : Yes/No

¶34

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.27 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Shankar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Gill Alias Deepu Vs State of Punjab

Jagtar Khan Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gopi Vs State of Punjab

Sagarpreet Singh Alias Sagar Vs State of Punjab

Dikshit Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab