CRM No. M-11294 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-11294 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.05.2011 Ms. Aarti and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. KD. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.19 dated 9.3.2011 under Sections 381/34 IPC, Police Station Division No.8 (Kailash Chowk), Ludhiana City. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as per the contents of the FIR, accused Aarti was working as a helper, who also helped the complainant to take care of her elder brother who often remained ill; about three months back, her gold jewellery weighing 15 tolas as well as Rs.50,000/- were stolen, regarding which she had been making inquiries from accused Aarti at her own level; but she did not confess the guilt. Her father's sister (Bua) namely, Sonia also used to visit their house quite often; she was confident that accused Aarti, as well as said Sonia had stolen the said articles. Learned counsel further CRM No. M-11294 of 2011 (O&M) -2- states that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel further states that petitioner has joined the investigation in pursuance of the order dated 19.4.2011. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from SI Naveen Kumar, who is personally present in the Court, states that stolen items have not been recovered as yet. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, states that in the present case police was informed at the earliest, however, deliberately FIR in question was registered after three months. Be as the case may be, the question as to whether petitioners have stolen the items as alleged by the complainant is a matter of trial. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 126, has observed that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. Petitioners have joined the investigation. From the language of the FIR it appears that petitioners are implicated only on the basis of suspicion. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Order dated 19.4.2011 is made absolute. (Alok Singh) Judge May 31, 2011 R.S.