IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 805 of 2011. Date of decision: 12.10.2011. Darshnu Devi & anr. ….. Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioners on bail in FIR No.100 of 2011 dated 27.5.2011 registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, under Sections 448, 380, 506, 34 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner No. 1 is owner of house in village Gharyana consisting of two rooms. The petitioner No. 2 is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1. The husband of petitioner No. 2 has also been implicated in the case. The petitioner No. 1 and her son Karam Chand were jointly residing in the said house having common ration card. The house is situated on abadi deh. Karam Chand is habitual drunkard and he has divorced Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… his wife. He has also sold whole share of his property for the sake of liquor. 3. The petitioner No. 1 has never consented the alleged sale of house by Karam Chand in favour of Maheshi Lal. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners are innocent, they are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed bail to petitioners, under section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report in which it has been stated that case has been registered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the directions of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 6, Shimla. It has been stated that complainant Maheshi Lal has purchased the house in question vide sale deed dated 15.3.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The possession of the house was handed over to Maheshi Lal, who put his locks on 17.3.2011. But on 18.3.2011 the complainant found that accused after breaking open the locks took possession of the rooms and tide their cow in one room and in another room some articles were placed. On 23.3.2011 complainant in view of oral compromise paid Rs.20,000/- to Rup Dass husband of petitioner No. 2. On 24.3.2011 complainant took possession of two rooms and put his various articles. On 9.4.2011 accused took out the articles of complainant from the house. On 10.4.2011 the complainant asked accused the reasons for their illegal acts, he was threatened by the …3… accused. On this complaint was filed and the learned Judicial Magistrate directed registration of the case. 5. Rup Dass was arrested on 21.9.2011, but was released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2 on 26.9.2011. The articles of the complainant, which were taken out from the house could not be recovered. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 29.9.2011. The petitioners have joined the investigation but are not disclosing about the articles. They have taken the stand that Karam Chand had wrongly sold the house. They have denied that any articles were kept by the complainant in the house or they have committed any theft. 6. In the police file, there is copy of `sale deed’ dated 15.3.2011, but it is not a registered document. The document though has been described as `sale deed’ but it cannot be considered as `sale-deed’ for want of registration. There is no specific averment in the `sale deed’ that actual physical possession of the house has been handed over to the complainant in pursuance of the `sale deed’. There is nothing to indicate how Karam Chand is the exclusive owner of the house in question. The investigating agency has not pointed out any revenue record showing exclusive ownership and possession of Karam Chand over the house in question. It is nobody’s case that before alleged sale deed dated 15.3.2011, the petitioners were not in possession of the house in question. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in their favour. …4… 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR No.100 of 2011 dated 27.5.2011 registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, under Sections 448, 380, 506, 34 IPC, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer with the condition that petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. Both the petitioners being women, they shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with law. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Dasti copy. October 12, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.