IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-6257 of 2011 Date of decision : 28.4.2011 Dayanand and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Rakesh Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant. K.C.Puri, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that offence under Section 307 IPC has been added later on. So the application for grant of bail be read in context to Section 307 IPC also. Petitioners have applied for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.89/2011 dated 1.2.211 under Sections 148, 149, 447, 511, 323, 506, 380 IPC and 27/54/59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station City Karnal. As per allegation of the prosecution, the complainant-Shashi Bhusan made a complaint that his wife Lalita Gupta is the owner in possession of the shop No.C-36, Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Karnal which was purchased by her in the year 2007. Earlier, his father Darshan Lal was in possession of this shop for about last 60 years, thereafter, they continued in possession. On 16.1.2011, Satish Kumar son of Madan Lal approached us through Maharaja Property dealer for purchase of the property. At that time, Mahipal Sharma accompanied Satish. The deal was settled at Rs.1,18,0000/- and token money of Rs.51,000/- was paid. The date of registration of sale deed was fixed as 24.1.2011, but the sale deed could not be registered. On 28.1.2011, Satish Kumar and Mahipal told that the sale deed would be got registered on 31.1.2011. On 31.1.2011, they again approached and obtained signatures of wife of the complainant on the challan form for purchase of stamps. On 1.2.2011, at about 5.00 pm. Madan Crl.Misc.No.M-6257 of 2011 Gupta informed the complainant that some armed persons had broken the lock of his shop and were removing the tyres. The complainant reached the spot with his son Shivam where 20-25 persons were already present. They pointed a double barrel gun towards his neck and threatened to kill the complainant. He came to police station and moved a complaint. On receipt of the complaint, police reached the spot and apprehended five armed persons who were carrying double barrel gun, live cartridges, dandas and iron road etc. In the meanwhile, the complainant called Deepak Narang, Vinay Sharma and Ashok Narang. Detail of the articles has been mentioned in the FIR. The case of the petitioners is that Bhushan Juneja was the original owner of the property and he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Sushil Kumar as well as Jagdish. On 18.8.2007, Sushil Kumar executed an agreement to sell the shop for a consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- and received whole of the consideration amount. It is submitted that Jagdish further executed a sale deed in favour of Lalita Gupta on 10.09.2007. It is further contended that on 16.12.2010, sale deed has also been executed in favour of petitioner No.2-Mahipal by Sushil Kumar on the basis of power of attorney. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Gurdev Singh states that no recovery of the stolen articles has taken place. Originally, FIR was registered under Sections 148, 149, 447, 511, 323, 506 and 380 IPC and 27/54/59 A of the Arms Act. However, offence under Section 307 IPC was added on presentation of the challan. A civil suit is stated to be pending between the parties. Recovery from the petitioner are sticks (Dandas). Petitioners are stated to be in custody since 1.2.2011. Trial of the case would not be concluded at an early date. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition stands allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of trial Court. ( K.C. Puri) Judge 28.04.2011 sd 2