IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:13.10.2025 Date of decision:15.10.2025 Bhupender Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Tanvir Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section Section 482 of the BNSS seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.43, dated 16.03.2025, under Sections 190, 191(3), 303, 324(4), 329(3), 82 of the BNS (offences under Sections 329(3) and 82 of the BNS were added lateron), registered at Police Station City Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by complainant – Sandeep Singh on 16.03.2025 alleging that an agreement to sell land belonging to Rampal and Mahabir had been executed in his favour. This land which was situated at Chamdheda road was in his possession and he had erected a boundary wall on the same. CCTV cameras were also installed. On the same day, he was at Mahendergarh when he came to know that the petitioner along with 20-25 other persons had reached at his land along with several vehicles and JCB machine. All of them were armed with weapons. They damaged the boundary wall of his land and committed theft of the cameras. He disclosed names of some of those persons including that of the petitioner and prayed for taking action against them.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide order dated 16.06.2025.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, he had agreed to purchase 803 sq. yards of land from Dharmender, Sonu and Meera Kumari. An agreement to sell was executed in his favour on 28.02.2025. Prior to that, another agreement to sell dated 20.11.2024 had been executed in his favour by other co-sharers of the same land. It is possession of this land which is being disputed by the complainant. In fact the lawful owners have sold this land to the petitioner and the complainant wants to deprive him of the same and is bent upon having illegal possession of properties of the innocent persons. He himself is a person of criminal antecedents as 03 FIRs including one murder case have been registered against him. It is he, who wants to grab the land of the actual owners. No offence as alleged has been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner is nowhere seen in the CCTV footage. Even the complainant was not present at the spot. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. Five of the similarly situated co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. The complainant has no proof of ownership over the disputed property. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned State counsel on the other hand while referring to the facts as mentioned in the status report has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is required for conducting proper investigation. It is, therefore urged that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have damaged the boundary wall of land, which is claimed to be in possession of the complainant, to have committed theft of CCTV cameras installed there in the same and criminally trespassed into the said property. Given the nature of t