Mohali court rejects anticipatory bail of teen accused in firing case

A local court in Mohali has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a 19-year-old youth accused of firing gunshots at a car in Phase-1 area, observing that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth crucial aspects of the case and that the accused did not deserve the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner, a resident of Mauli Baidwan village in Sector 80, Mohali, had approached the court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 295 dated December 8, 2025, registered under Sections 125, 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Phase-1 police station.

The case was registered on the complaint of Gurdeep Singh, who reported that unidentified persons had fired two gunshots at the windshield of his Thar Roxx vehicle and damaged its bonnet with a sharp-edged weapon in the early hours of December 8. CCTV footage allegedly showed two men arriving in a Scorpio vehicle and carrying out the attack.

During investigation, the police arrested co-accused Mehtab Singh after finding that the Scorpio car used in the incident was registered in his father’s name. Based on his disclosure statement, the police nominated the petitioner, alleging that he had fired the shots, while another accused damaged the vehicle.

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the petitioner played a direct role in the firing incident and that the seriousness of the offence ruled out any relief. The defence contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated and named only on the basis of a disclosure statement, which is inadmissible as evidence.

Rejecting the plea, the court observed that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and should be granted sparingly, particularly in serious offences involving firearms. The court held that there were clear and categorical allegations against the petitioner and that granting protection from arrest could hamper the investigation.

The court further noted that custodial interrogation was imperative to ascertain the motive behind the attack and to identify other persons involved. Consequently, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, while clarifying that the observations would not affect the merits of the trial.