Criminal Misc.No. M- 17306 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M- 17306 of 2010 Date of decision:- 13.9.2010 Neeru Chopra and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG Haryana. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.176 dated 16.5.2010, under Sections 452,380 IPC, registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations are that complainant is in occupation of a room and a kitchen constructed in 40/50 square feet area under petitioner No.1 at monthly rent of Rs.800/-. Petitioner No.1 had asked the complainant to vacate the said house to which complainant requested the petitioner that she would vacate the same as and when she would get another house and however petitioner started abusing the complainant to get the premises evicted forcibly. A civil suit between the parties is pending. Further allegations are that on 15.2.2010 son of the complainant, who used to ply a three wheeler had left the house in early morning and husband of complainant was also away to Saharanpur. Petitioner was also out Criminal Misc.No. M- 17306 of 2010 -2- of house and the house was lying locked. When complainant returned during night time, it was told to her by one Krishan Lal resident of neighbourhood that petitioners alongwith 2-3 other persons came here and after breaking open the lock of house of complainant taken away house-hold articles, lying in the room. It has been stated that the articles including gold ornaments and cash amount of Rs.48,000/- were also stolen, however, the description of gold ornaments and cash has not been mentioned in the FIR. The description of gold ornaments and cash was given in the form of a list later on by the complainant on the same day. At the time of granting interim order of stay in favour of petitioners, counsel for the petitioners had undertaken to restore the possession of the house and to return the articles to the complainant and however plea was taken that allegations regarding taking Rs.48,000/- were not true as the same is also not mentioned in the FIR. Matter was also sent to Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement. However, settlement could not take place. It has been stated by counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant that though possession of room and kitchen has been handed over to the complainant by the petitioners, and other articles have been returned, however, almirah has been returned in broken condition and that golden ornaments weighing eight tolas and silver ornaments weighing thirty tolas and cash of Rs.48,000/-, details of which has been given in the list, moved on the same day to the police, have not been returned to the complainant. Hence, the present petition for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is improvement in the version of complainant that petitioners had taken away golden ornaments and Rs.48,000/- as the details of the same was not mentioned in the FIR. There are serious allegations against the petitioners. They being land-lord of the house, had taken forcible possession of the same in the absence of complainant, while the house was locked Criminal Misc.No. M- 17306 of 2010 -3- and taken away the goods lying there. Though the possession was restored and some of the articles have also been returned, however, golden ornaments and cash amount has not been returned. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. In view of these facts, it is not such a case, in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-Neeru Chopra and Ishu Chopra. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition for anticipatory bail to the petitioners- Neeru Chopra and Ishu Chopra is dismissed. Interim order dated June 11, 2010 granted in favour of petitioners is vacated. September 13, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE