Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Land Possession Dispute, Says Long-Standing Civil Litigation and Prior Bail Orders Show No Need for Custody

Case Name: Harpreet Singh @ Har v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: October 23, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-59803-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Harpreet Singh @ Har in a case arising from an ongoing land dispute, observing that the matter was essentially civil in nature and that multiple FIRs filed by the same complainant indicated a pattern of harassment. Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that the petitioner had already been granted anticipatory bail in connected FIRs and that his willingness to join investigation, coupled with the absence of any specific allegation of firearm use, justified granting pre-arrest protection. The Court further ruled that the civil court had already ordered status quo regarding possession of the disputed land, and allegations of forcible harvesting could only be tested at trial. Continued criminal prosecution, it held, would be excessive and unnecessary in the circumstances

Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 173 dated November 27, 2024, registered under Sections 303(2), 329(3), 351(3), 324(5), 191(3), 190 BNS, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur. The FIR arose from a property dispute involving agricultural land originally owned by one Bhagwan Devi, later possessed by the petitioner’s grandfather Darshan Singh. The complainant purchased the land in 2016 despite knowing of pending surplus proceedings. Several subsequent FIRs, including FIR No. 36 dated April 13, 2025, were filed against the petitioner’s family over the same property.

The State opposed bail citing multiple FIRs against the petitioner, including those under the Arms Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. However, the Court found that many were connected to the same dispute or to earlier incidents where bail had already been granted. Justice Moudgil noted that the petitioner’s family had long been cultivating the disputed land, and photographs showed continued peaceful possession. The civil court’s status quo order dated January 2025 further supported that no criminal interference was necessary. The Court held that Jamabandi records alone could not conclusively determine ownership or possession and that allegation of posting photographs on social media showing armed persons harvesting crops required proof at trial, not pre-trial detention.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the investigating or arresting officer. He was directed to join investigation within one week and abide by the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, including cooperation, non-tampering with evidence, and restriction on travel outside India without prior permission. The Court clarified that non-compliance would automatically cancel the bail order.