IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vikas Garg ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Date of Uploading : 04.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Dr. Rau P.S. Girwar, Advocate and Ms. Archana Rau & Ms. K.T Rau, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Jatinder Kansal, Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Sanchit Garg, Advocates for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.180 dated 04.10.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 126(2) and 3(5) of BNS 2023, at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects to an incident alleged to have occurred during the night intervening, 17-18 May 2025, at a covered veranda situated in Kachehri Bazaar, Rampura. The veranda is stated to be used by residents of the locality as well as by nearby shop owners for ingress and egress to their respective properties. Owing to this shared usage, the disputed veranda is treated as public property. The issue came to light when Manjit Singh, who owns a shop adjacent to the veranda and has gates opening into it, lodged a complaint. He alleged that Vikas Garg (petitioner herein), Satya Devi, Ravi Kumar and some unknown persons had blocked the entrance to the veranda by erecting a temporary gate, despite the fact that a civil disputeregarding the same subject was already pending adjudication. According to the complainant, the accused had previously attempted to erecta gate but were prevented from doing so and these incidents were recorded bythe police in GD No.33 dated 09.10.2022 and GD No.39 dated 21.07.2023 for offences under Section 427 IPC. It was further alleged that the accused had been threatening him with false cases and causing serious harm. After receiving the complaint, the SSP Bathinda asked the DSP, Sub Division Rampura, to check whether any cognizable offence had been committed. A detailed inquiry was thereafter conducted, wherein the inquiry officer concluded that the veranda had indeed been used by residents for access to their properties and the accused had blocked it while falsely claiming it was their private property. On this basis, a formal FIR under Sections 333, 126(2) and 3(5) of the BNS was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that thepresent FIR is false, fabricated and a result of personal enmity. Learned counsel has further iterated that the covered veranda in dispute is a private property and does not constitute a common passage for the public or any inhabitant except the petitioner and one Ashok Kumar. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant has a history of creating false and fabricated documents as earlier also he had allegedly misused a letter of the Municipal Corporation, Rampura Phul to portray the area as a common passage. Learned counsel has further submitted that the offence under Section 333 of BNS is not attracted in the present case as the property indisputably belongs to the petitioner and the police have mechanically invoked this section merely to convert a civil dispute into a cognizable criminal case. Furthermore, the property dispute between the parties has long been the subject matter of civil litigation. Despite this, the police have registered a criminal case to pressurize the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the entire matter is document based and all relevant records are already in official custody leaving no scope for tampering. Learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after undue and unexplained delay which indicate afterthought and mala fides. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and