Panchkula, June 26 -- In a notable ruling, additional sessions judge Neeru Kamboj on Wednesday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Aarish, a 20-year-old resident of Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Aarish was booked by the Raipur Rani police station on May 20 in connection with a firing incident that occurred during an alleged attack on mining department officials. Aarish had sought pre-arrest bail after an FIR was registered against him on May 20 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case stems from a statement by SPO Harwinder Singh of the mining department, Panchkula. Singh reported that he and other officials were on duty, fixing barricades to prevent illegal mining at the crusher zone in Raipur Rani on the night of May 19-20. He alleged that around 3-3.30 am on May 20, a group of six to seven young boys approached the barricade. One of them fired a pistol shot, which narrowly missed the officials. The group then allegedly overpowered the three officials, seized their phones, and assaulted them. Identifying each other by names Rajeev, Happy, Tunda, and Ankit Rana, the miscreants severely beat the officials. Praveen Yadav, one of the officials, was left "half-dead". The attackers fled in two cars after threatening the officials and their families. Investigation led to the arrest of the accused Rajeev Kumar, Gurdeep alias Tunda, and Ankit Rana on May 21 based on secret information. Their disclosure statements resulted in the recovery of a car used in the incident and a country-made pistol with two live cartridges. Aarish's name surfaced through the disclosure statement of co-accused Ankit Rana, leading to his pending arrest. The public prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, arguing Aarish's direct involvement and presence at the scene. It was also contended that Aarish had allegedly purchased the firearm used, making his custodial interrogation crucial to trace the weapon's origin and apprehend the vendor. The prosecution further highlighted another Arms Act case against Aarish, describing him as a "habitual offender", and feared that granting bail could impede the ongoing investigation and the arrest of other accomplices. In its order, the court emphasised that custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused in the present case assumes significance for proper investigation and discovery of facts. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the offence, the court concluded that Aarish did not merit pre-arrest bail, thereby dismissing his application. The charges levelled against Aarish include Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 3(5) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), 109(1) (attempt to murder), 121(1) (voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty), 221 (obstructing a public servant), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 111(4) (being a member of an organised crime syndicate)....