IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No.1361 of 2010. Decided on: December 8, 2010 Pawan Kumar Saini and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. A case has been registered against the present petitioners and one Sudesh Sharma, under Sections 382, 383, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at the instance of one Meena Rani, who is employed as Clerk in the Office of Deputy Commissioner. A complaint was submitted to Judicial Magistrate, Una, in which it was alleged that the present petitioners, who are her relatives (petitioner Ravi Kanta is her step-daughter, petitioner Pawan Saini is Ravi Kanta’s husband and petitioner Raman Kumar Saini is a brother of Pawan Saini) and Sudesh Sharma, a sister-in-law of petitioner Ravi Kanta, on 2nd May, 2010, when she was going to her village Ajouli, on a Moped, followed her in a car and near village Badala they overtook her and stopped the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - car in front of the Moped and forced her to hand over the Moped alongwith cash of `25,000/-, which she had kept in the dickey of that Moped. She lodged a report with the police on 13th May, 2010. Thereafter, she submitted a complaint to the aforesaid Magistrate. That complaint was forwarded to the Police, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case was registered, after conducting enquiry, under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present petitioners have been found to have committed the aforesaid offences. 3. Moped and the cash, allegedly extorted by the petitioners and Sudesh Sharma, were offered to be returned to complainant Meena Rani, but she refused to receive the same. Now, the police have recovered the Moped from Pradhan of the Panchayat. 4. Prayer of the petitioners for grant of bail, before arrest, is opposed on the ground that the amount of `25,000/- still remains to be recovered. 5. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that report was lodged more than ten days after the occurrence and the petitioners are close relatives of the complainant and the incident is the outcome of some differences between the complainant and the petitioners, as per averment in the complaint itself, which was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, I am of the view that the petitioners deserve to be granted bail, before - 3 - arrest. Hence, the petition is allowed and order of interim bail dated 6th December, 2010 is made absolute, subject to the condition that they shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so. Petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti. December 8, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J