Mukesh Puri And Others vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2026

CRM-M-57525-2025                            -1-


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH
104
                                                              CRM-M-57525-2025
                                                              Decided on : 11.03.2026

Mukesh Puri and others                                                  . . . Petitioner(s)
                                           Versus
State of Punjab                                                      . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

PRESENT: Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate and
         Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate
         for the petitioner(s).

             Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab
             assisted by ASI Bhupinder Singh, P.S. Faridkot.
                                   ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,

2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioners, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First

Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

Name & age of FIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner (s) No. Station

(i) Mukesh Puri, 244 12.11.2024 329(3), 351(3), 62, 303(2), City Faridkot aged about 38 324(4), 324(5) of BNS, 2023 Kotkapur years, [added later on S. 318(4)/61(2) a

(ii) Surinder Kumar, of BNS, 2023 and S. 329(3) aged about 76 351(3), 62, 303(2), 324(4), years, and 324(5) of BNS, 2023 deleted

(iii) Jagjeet Singh later on] Dhuria, aged about 54 years

2. In the present case, on 14.10.2025, following order was passed

by this Court:-

"2. In the instant case, FIR has been registered by the complainant - Amarjit Kaur, stating that on 06.06.2023, she had purchased a plot measuring 15 marlas (in total 453 sq. yards), being 3/32 share of land measuring 8 kanals, comprised in Khewat No. 175/169, Khatauni No. 239, Khasra No. 192//2 (8-0), as

1 of 4

per Agwar Angra, Jamabandi for the year 2019-2020, H.B. No. 129, situated at Kotkapura, from Surender Kumar and others. The length of the purchased plot is 102 ft. and the width is 40 ft.

As per FIR, the complainant had also got possession of the land after execution of the registry, and prior to registration, there was no place of Shaheed Baba Hira Singh at the said purchased land. Subsequently, a tomb of Shaheed Baba Hira Singh was constructed on the said plot with the consent of the residents of village Aulakh, and a room measuring 12 × 13 metres was also built above the tomb, besides a shed of steel sheets for the gathering/crowd to sit under it.

Subsequent to this, on 09.11.2024, at about 11:30 a.m., the tomb established by the complainant was demolished by Dr. Rajinder Kumar Arora, Balwinder Singh alias Babli, Gagandeep Singh Bhau, and 15-20 other unknown persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that upon moving of a complaint by the complainant before the police, an inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, i.e., SP (PBI), Sri Muktsar Sahib, wherein it was concluded that the plot in question actually belongs to Dr. Rajinder Kumar Arora, Balwinder Singh alias Babli, and Gagandeep Singh Bhau, and they were the owners of the plot in question. Thus, during the course of inquiry, it was found that the present accused, namely, Mukesh Puri, Surinder Kumar, and Jagjeet Singh (petitioners herein), in connivance with each other, had sold the plot in question to Amarjit Kaur, despite the fact that they were not owners in possession of the said plot.

4. Learned counsel further argues that, in fact, vide registered sale deeds dated 15.12.2017 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively), the petitioners had purchased the plot and had thereafter sold the same to the complainant - Amarjit Kaur, vide sale deed dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure P-5). He further submits that the area where the plot is situated is jointly owned by several co-sharers, and a suit for partition (Annexure P-6) is pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridkot, having been instituted by the co-sharers, namely, Sudarshanjit Kaur and Sushpreet Kaur @ Supreet Kaur, through their attorney, Sh. Rajinder Kumar, by impleading a total of 28 co-sharers as defendants in the said suit. Additionally, learned counsel submits that all three petitioners (family members) are parties/defendants in the said civil suit at Sr. Nos. 6, 19, and 27.

Learned counsel, thus, contends that there was no power with the Police Department to decide ownership of the property when admittedly, the same is jointly owned by several persons. The action of the police is, therefore, beyond their jurisdiction. It is further submitted that no criminal case could have been registered against the present petitioners, as the dispute is civil in nature, pertaining at the most to possession, and no criminal offence is made out. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to join investigation, if protected from arrest.

5. Notice of motion.

6. On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and seeks some time to respond to the

2 of 4

submissions addressed by learned counsel opposite, after seeking instructions. And, in case of necessity, to file status report, if any.

7. Adjourned to 19.01.2026.

8. In the meanwhile, petitioners are directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

9. Besides, it is directed that petitioners would hand over their passports to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if they possesses. Otherwise, would submit their respective affidavits, disclosing the fact that they do not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioners would seek prior permission of the Court.

10. In the present case, the respondent - State shall also file a status report, including the affidavit of the concerned SSP, indicating how the inquiry was conducted when primarily, the dispute appears to be civil in nature, the land being in joint possession of several persons. The status report shall also specify under what provision of law the Inquiry Officer, i.e., SP (PBI) concerned, decided the title of the land in favour of Dr. Rajinder Kumar Arora, Balwinder Singh alias Babli, and Gagandeep Singh Bhau."

2. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that in compliance of the order dated 14.10.2025, passed by this

Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated.

Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail

order.

3. Learned State counsel on instructions, confirms the said

averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation on

16.11.2025 by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of

investigation.

Besides, learned State counsel submits that petitioners while

joining the investigation submitted an affidavit that they do not possessing