CRM-M/34390/2026 of SUMIT KUMAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 August 2026

REEMA SAINI

03.01.2026, he again received a WhatsApp message threatening him with dire consequences, if he approached the administration or police. Subsequently, on 06.01.2026, complainant was informed that inner glass of his shop’s entrance was broken. Upon reaching the shop, he discovered 5 to 6 bullet marks on the main gate of shutter. He suspected the involvement Shubham Grover in the incident.

3. Shubham Grover who was lodged in Central Jail, Ferozepur, in connection with some other case was arrested and police remand was obtained. During police remand, he disclosed the involvement of Sumit @ Altron, Sanju, Sumit Kumar (petitioner) and Abhi Kumar. On 12.01.2026 a barricading was held to apprehend the accused. When police officials were patrolling, information was received regarding three youths riding a motor cycle, who had broken through a police barricade. The police party noticed three young persons approaching on a motorcycle. Petitioner was driving the motorcycle, while accused Sumit @ Altron was seated in the middle and Sanju was seated on the rear. They attempted to take U-turn. The motor cycle slipped and all of them fell down. When HC Pardeep Singh tried to apprehend them, Sumit @ Altron fired a shot from an illegal pistol which tore the left side of his turban. Thereafter, Sanju fired from his illegal pistol and the shot hit bumper of the police vehicle. ASI Sukhwinder Singh, in discharge of his official duty, in private defence, fired from his Government issued Service revolver, which hit petitioner Sumit Kumar on his leg. Petitioner and co-accused were apprehended and arrested. Section 109 BNS was added in the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who was in custody w.e.f. 11.01.2026, was innocent and had been falsely REEMA SAINI

implicated. In fact, it was a case of mistaken identity. Petitioner was not involved in any other offence and had clean antecedents. No police official was injured in the course of firing incident. Neither petitioner was named in the FIR nor any specific role was attributed to him. Challan had been presented, therefore, petitioner deserved to been enlarged on regular bail.

5. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail arguing that name of the petitioner was disclosed by co-accused Shubham Grover, as one of the persons involved in the firing incident in the shop of the complainant. Petitioner participated in the firing incident at Dusty Look Shop on 06.01.2026 on instructions of Shubham Grover and Arshad Khan. Again while he was trying to evade apprehension, co-accused fired at the police party on which account offence under Section 109 BNS was invoked against him. Allegations being serious in nature, there was no ground to release him on regular bail.

6. Petitioner is alleged to be an active participant in the criminal conspiracy hatched to extort money from the complainant and to terrorise him through a firing incident in his shop. Later, when police tried to apprehend him, while he was attempting to flee on a motorcycle, his co- accused fired at the police party. Petitioner is allegedly part of an organized extortion racket being operated by jail inmates through criminal intimidation and use of fire arms. Given the grave nature of allegations, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail, despite the period of incarceration and completion of investigation. Possibility of petitioner threatening and influencing the witnesses in the event of release on bail is high. REEMA SAINI

7. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

JUDGE 27.08.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI