IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-22779 of 2009 Date of decision : September 02, 2009 Rohit Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Rohit Kumar has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 85 dated 2.4.2009 under sections 452, 379, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner and his co- accused along with 15/20 other persons forcibly entered the wine shop of the complainant and gave beatings to the complainant and his servant and also threw away fridge and wine cartons lying in the shop and also committed theft of Rs three lacs although suit for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting was already pending. Criminal Misc. No. M-22779 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner joined the investigation many times immediately after the occurrence when he learnt that his name was mentioned in the FIR and he was verbally told by the then Investigating Officer that he (petitioner) was innocent and with a change of Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, the petitioner is now sought to be arrested. Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Gurtej Singh states that the petitioner never joined investigation nor the petitioner was ever found to be innocent. It is also contended that the petitioner has been named in the FIR. Already court case was pending for seeking ejectment of the complainant from the disputed shop but the petitioner and his co-accused tried to get the shop vacated forcibly. There are allegations of throwing away goods of the complainant from the shop on the road and also theft of Rs three lacs. The petitioner has been named in the FIR. Keeping in view the aforesaid but without meaning to comment anything on the merits, the petitioner, in my view, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 02, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'