P&H HC Bails Three Accused in Fatal Shooting, Citing None Was Alleged to Have Fired and Their Roles Were Threats or Weapon Supply

The petitions sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from FIR No. 163 dated 21 July 2025, Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar Rural.

The victim, Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakhbir Singh, was shot on 21 July 2025 and later died from his injuries; the FIR initially named other alleged assailants, while these petitioners were implicated during subsequent investigation.

The prosecution attributed to Sandeep Singh the role of threatening the deceased, to Anmolpreet Singh the arranging of a pistol and ammunition, and to Gagandeep Singh the arranging of a pistol for another accused. None was alleged to have been one of the shooters present at the scene.

Sandeep had been in custody since 20 August 2025, Anmolpreet since 17 January 2026, and Gagandeep was already in custody at the time of the incident.

The petitioners relied, among other matters, on the grant of bail to co-accused Prabh Masih.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) empowers the High Court to grant regular bail during the pendency of trial.

In considering bail, the Court assessed the seriousness of the allegations alongside each petitioner’s alleged role, the material relied on by the prosecution, the period of custody and the overall circumstances; the judgment cites no precedent or more specific doctrinal test.

The petitioners faced charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and, as applicable, the Arms Act, 1959.

The Court acknowledged that the alleged attack resulted in the victim’s death, but distinguished the petitioners’ alleged conduct from that of the three persons said to have fired at the victim: the petitioners were not alleged to be present as shooters, and their involvement arose during subsequent investigation, with separate alleged roles in threatening or facilitating the provision of weapons.

The Court also noted the bail granted to a co-accused, the petitioners’ respective periods of custody and that Gagandeep was already in custody when the incident occurred.

On these circumstances, it found that continued detention was not warranted at that stage.

It directed that they must not threaten or influence prosecution witnesses, and clarified that its observations would not affect the trial Court’s independent assessment of the evidence.