Mahinder Singh Alias Mahinder Pal v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CRM-M-28567-2025 Date of decision: 12.08.2025 MAHINDER SINGH ALIAS MAHINDER PAL ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT 2) CRM-M-29475-2025 SATPAL ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT 3) CRM-M-29496-2025 JAGMAL SINGH AND ANR.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT 4) CRM-M-30249-2025 ARUN PAL SINGH ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-28567-2025.

Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate and Mr. Virat Rana, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-29475-2025, CRM-M-29496-2025 and CRM-M-30249-2025.

Dr. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 27.03.2025 Naraingarh, Ambala 303 of BNS, 2023 1.

In all the above mentioned petitions common question of law and facts are involved, so all petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. For brevity facts are being taken

-2from CRM-M-28567-2025 titled as "Mahinder Singh Alias Mahinder Pal Versus State of Haryana."

2.

The petitioner(s) apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

3.

Per bail petition(s) as well as status report(s), some of petitioner(s) have criminal antecedents but the same are not under heinous offences. 4.

Petitioner(s) were granted interim protection, subject to joining investigation and said orders continued till date.

5.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the translated copy of FIR (Annexure P1), which reads as follows: "On the above subject it is hereby informed to you that the Gram Panchayat Bataura Block Naraingarh vide its resolution no. 2 dated 26.03.2025 informed the Block Office that the Hon'ble Collector, Ambala vide order dated 17.03.2025 restrained from cutting the trees from the Shyamlat Land of Gram Panchayat Bataura. Inspite of that from the Shyamlat land the Sisham and Safeda trees were being illegally cut by Sh. Jaspal, Sh. Jagmal, Sh. Arun Pal Singh, Sh. Satpal, Sh. Jai Chand and Sh. Sanjeev, the description of which are as under :- Sh. Jaspal from Khasra No. 6//3,8,12 safeda( eucaplyptus) trees 400, Shisham total 400, Sh. Jagmal Khasra No. 6//13,18,23 Safeda (eucaplyptus) trees 400, Shisham- total400, Sh.

Arun Pal Singh Khasra No. 6//4,7,2,9 Safeda (eucaplyptus) trees 200, Shisham-total 200, Sh Satpal Khasra No. 7//23 Safeda (eucaplyptus) trees 100, Shisham -- Total 100, Sh Jai Chand Sh. Sanjeev Khasra No. 18//15,16 Safeda, Shisham 100 total- 100. Sh. Mahinder Pal (Nagauli) Khasra No. 8//8,13 Safeda (eucaplyptus) trees 400, Shisham- -, Total -400 Total 1600 i.e.

100. So by sending the original resolution of the gram Panchayat Bataura to you, it is requested that legal action be initiated against the above mentioned person who have unauthorsidey cut down the trees from the Panchayat land of the Gram Panchayat. Attached as above Sd/- JOGESH KUMAR, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Naraingarh. Page No. 907-09, dated 26.03.2025. Place- Police Station. On receipt of the above application in the Police Station FIR No. 91 dated 27.03.2025 under Section 303(2) of the BNS, 2023 has been registered in PS Naraingarh Distt. Ambala and for investigation the file will be entrusted to ASI Kanwal Jit no. 275 on his coming present to the Police Station. Copies of the FIR are being sent through post to the concerned officers. The facts have been narrated to the SHO. The case has been registered in presence of SI Kulbir." 6.

Counsel for the petitioner(s) submit that petitioner(s) have been falsely implicated in the

-3present cases due to local political rivalry. All the petitioner(s) were granted interim bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel further submit that petitioner(s) are brothers and being co-sharers, they are in possession of Khasra No.8/8(7-0), 13(8-0).The petitioners' counsel pray for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner(s) and their families. Petitioner(s) already joined investigation.

7.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report(s) in all cases. REASONING:

8.

Allegations against the petitioner(s) are of cutting eucalyptus and Shisham trees from the land of Gram Panchayat, however, petitioner(s) are claiming their possession over the land from which trees were cut. Petitioner(s) already joined the investigation. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage, but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 9.

Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner(s) make a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 10.

Given above, provided the petitioner(s) are not required in any other case, the petitioner(s) shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 11.

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner(s) shall mention the following personal identification details:

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 12.

This order is subject to the petitioner(s) complying with the following terms. 13.

The petitioner(s) are directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner(s) shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the

-4Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner(s) shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner(s) shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

14.

In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner(s) notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

15.

The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner(s) another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner(s) also abide by the assurance made on the petitioner(s) behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 16.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17.

A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner(s) can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

18.

Petitions are allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

12.08.2025 (ANOOP CHITKARA) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No