Crl. Misc. No. M-4442 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4442 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.7.2011 Neha ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Pannu, DAG Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. The FIR in question was registered on the statement of Veena, complainant naming certain persons as accused. The petitioner was not named. The allegations are that the accused had broken the almirahs & trunks in her house and committed theft of gold and cash. The incident is alleged to be dated 11.4.2010 and the house in which theft was committed, was locked at that time. It came to the notice of the complainant immediately as it was pointed out to her by her sister-in-law, who came to her house on that day. The FIR was got registered on May 24, 2010. It is alleged that ` 18 lacs in cash and 60 tolas of gold were stolen. On arrest of some of the accused and on their disclosure statements, ` 5,88,000/- was recovered from Bholi, who is sister-in-law of Sonu's sister, one of the accused named in the FIR. Bholi has not been named in the FIR. ` 30,000/- and 20.730 grams of gold was recovered from Sonu. The name of the petitioner appeared during the process of investigation in the statements of Sonu and Kali. The petitioner is sister of Kali. It was claimed by them that Crl. Misc. No. M-4442 of 2011 - 2 - after theft, the cash and the gold was shared by them and a part of that was given to Bholi and Neha, the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has nothing to do with the FIR in question. She was married 5 years back and is presently residing in Mumbai in her matrimonial home. She occasionally visits Gurdaspur to meet her parents. Merely because the co-accused named her in the investigation, her custodial interrogation is not required as she is not involved in the case. She should not be harassed merely because her brother is named as accused in the FIR as neither any cash nor jewellery was handed over to her by any of the accused. There is a delay of 45 days in lodging the FIR as the incident which had taken place on 11.4.2010 but was reported to the police on 24.5.2010. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there was a fight between the complainant and one Pawan Kumar, who are close relatives, on 31.3.2010. It is on account of that the complainant party had left the house as such. They are in transport business. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by stating that on account of fight which had taken place between the family on 31.3.2010, an FIR was got registered against the complainant party in the present case under various provisions of IPC including Section 326 IPC. They were in process of availing of their remedies and the FIR for the present incident could not be registered immediately after it came to their notice. The names of the petitioner and Bholi have been disclosed by none-else than the brother of the petitioner and also close relation of Bholi otherwise both the ladies are not named in the FIR. The involvement of the petitioner is fortified from the fact that substantial part of cash was recovered from the possession of Bholi, though not named in the FIR. The statement of Sonu and Kali is that after the theft, the amount was shared by them among themselves and a part thereof was handed over to Bholi and Neha, the present petitioner. Kali, brother of the petitioner and Sonu are habitual offenders as there are other cases pending against them of similar nature and some on account of injuries caused by them in fight. For recovery of the amount and the jewellery, which is alleged to have been handed over to the petitioner, her custodial interrogation is required. Crl. Misc. No. M-4442 of 2011 - 3 - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the allegations against the petitioner which have emerged during the process of investigation especially the statement of brother of the petitioner and also recovery of cash from Bholi, who was also not named in the FIR, co-related with one of the accused Kali, in my opinion, the petitioner, who is sister of Kali, one of the accused in the FIR also does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 21.7.2011 Judge Meenu