IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.146 CRA-S-245-2026 Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 RAM KISHAN ...Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Lupil Gupta, Mr. Apurv Kamboj and Mr. Jashandeep Singh, Advocates for the appellant.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikram Singh, Ms. Arushi Lamba Brar and Mr. Vishavjeet S. Beniwal, Advocates for respondents No. 2 and 3.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by Ram Kishan, appellant/complainant, challenging the order dated 16th October 2025, vide which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda has made absolute the bail order dated 8th October 2025 and has granted anticipatory bail to respondents No. 2 and 3, namely Sukhbir Singh and Sukraj Singh.

2. The facts of the case, as emerging from the FIR are that the proceedings originated from Application No. 650517 dated 28.08.2025 submitted by complainant Ram Krishan to the authorities, which was forwarded through official channels including the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, regarding alleged illegal occupation of his house. In the application, it was alleged that respondents Sukhbir Singh and Sukhraj Singh had illegally occupied his house, had not paid any rent or utility bills, and had damaged the property and removed his name plate. It was further alleged that they had acted with the intention of permanently usurping the property, despite knowing that the house belonged to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste, and that they were residing there along with their family. The complainant also stated that earlier a written compromise dated 06.01.2025 had been effected but the occupants failed to comply with its terms, and despite seeking three months’ time to vacate the house, they neither vacated it even after about seven months nor cleared any dues. The application was thereafter taken up by the police authorities and forwarded by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda to DSP City-2, Bathinda for investigation. Thereafter, the matter was examined on the basis of the earlier inquiry report submitted by the investigating officer, which had been forwarded for legal opinion to DDA Legal, Bathinda. The Deputy District Attorney, vide office letter dated 16.04.2025, opined that since the dispute was under consideration before the Rent Controller, no action was required on the part of the local police and the application be filed, leaving it open to the applicant to approach the competent authority. The said opinion was examined in office on 18.04.2025.

3. Subsequently, copies of the first investigation report along with the legal opinion were forwarded with a request to obtain fresh legal opinion so that the matter could be reconsidered on the basis of facts and a proper report could be submitted to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Bathinda, who had conducted the inquiry, submitted the report accordingly. Upon perusal thereof, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda directed the SP-D to examine the matter and furnish comments, pursuant to which a further investigation report dated 26.09.2025 was prepared. In the said report, reference was made to the complaint filed by Ram Krishan before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes alleging forcible occupation of his house and related acts against Sukhbir Singh and Sukhraj Singh, and the matter was processed for further action.Thereafter, during investigation conducted by DSP City-2, Bathinda, statements of the parties were recorded and it was noted that the respondents Sukhbir Singh and Sukhraj Singh were alleged to have occupied the house knowing that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste and were stated to be residing there without any agreement. It was also recorded that, as per the statements considered