IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-59803-2025 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION: 23.10.2025 HARPREET SINGH @ HAR ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rajiv Verma, Addl. A.G, Punjab.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR no.173 dated 27.11.2024 u/s 329(3), 303(2), 351(3), 324(5), 191(3), 190 BNS, 2023 and Section 25, 27 of Arms act registered at PS Makhu, District Ferozpur, (Annexure P-1).

2. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question has been under long-standing civil litigation. It originally belonged to Bhagwan Devi, who died in 1964, and has since remained in possession of Darshan Singh, grandfather of the petitioner. Various proceedings before the Financial Commissioner and this Court culminated in orders dated 25.02.2002 and 05.01.2011. The Naib Tehsildar, Makhu, had recorded the Girdawri of the disputed land in favour of Gurmeet Singh (father of the petitioner) on 31.12.2024, which was later remitted for reconsideration by the SDM, Zira, on

14.02.2025 after challenge by the complainant.

He would further submit that despite knowing about the pending surplus proceedings, the complainant purchased the land in 2016. After the present FIR, another FIR No. 36 dated 13.04.2025 was registered, in which the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail. It is asserted that the FIRs have been lodged under political pressure. It is further urged that since no firearm was used, hence offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are not attracted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer.

Notice of motion.

On behalf of the State Learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice on instructions from Investigating officer vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of concession of anticipatory bail stating that there are 9 other FIRs i.e. FIR 41 dated 28.04.2016 under Sections 379, 216 of IPC, FIR No.77 dated 18.06.2019 under Sections 447, 511, 336, 506, 149 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act, FIR No.77 dated 26.05.2022, under Sections 325, 354, 323, 447, 511, 427 of IPC, FIR No.96 dated 21.06.2022, U/s 307, 447, 511, 427, 148/149 of IPC and U/s 25, 27 of Arms Act, FIR No.51 dated 03.06.2016 U/s 354, 351/149 of IPC, FIR No.29 dated 22.09.2022 U/s 25(i) of Arms Act and U/s 10, 13, 18,20 of UAPA Act, FIR No.58 dated 11.04.2023 U/s 379, 427, 336, 148/149 of IPC and Section 25,27 of Arms Act, FIR No.60 dated

15.06.2023 U/s 387 of IPC have been got registered against petitioner.

3. Analysis After considering the factual matrix presented before this Court that the complainant has earlier also lodged FIRs against the present petitioner and his father i.e. FIR No. 36 dated 13.04.2025 registered under Sections 329, 303(2), 351(3), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 at P.S. Makhu, District Ferozepur and they are entangled in three other FIRs the details of which is reproduced below :-

Sr. No.	FIR	Date	Offence	Police Station
1.	173	27.11.2024	303(2), 329(3), 324(5), 351(3), 191(3), 190 of BNS 2023 and Sections. 25 & 27 of Arms Act	PS Makhu, District Ferozpur
2.	29	22.09.2022	25, 27 of Arms Act and 10, 13, 18 & 20 of UAP Act	SSOC, District Amritsar
3.	143	07.09.2022	25 of Arms Act and 120 of IPC	Majithhia Road, Amritsar

Though this very fact has been further aggravated by learned State Counsel who points out that there are 9 other FIRs in which the petitioner is invovled and while drawing the attention of this Court in one order of the Trial Court in the instant FIR the details of FIRs are as under :-

‘FIR 41 dated 28.04.2016 under Sections 379, 216 of IPC, FI

Click Here to Read the rest of this document