Crl.M.No.M-31351 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-31351 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 26, 2010 Tarlochan Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.55852 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-31351 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.355, dated 27.9.2010, under Sections 148, 323, 342, 384 and 506/149 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahabad. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that the complainant had purchased a car bearing No.PB-48C-4679 from the petitioner and had paid Rs.3 lacs for its consideration. Installments of the loan taken for purchase of car by the petitioner was also being paid to the bank by the complainant. However, petitioner refused to give NOC of the said car and hence a dispute arose between them and case was filed by the complainant against the petitioner, which is pending before the Courts at Mohali. Further allegations are that on 27.9.2010, at about 2.15 p.m. Crl.M.No.M-31351 of 2010 (O&M) -2- petitioner alongwith co-accused confined the complainant in a shop and gave him beatings with dandas, fists and blows and had taken away the car and Rs.3 lacs cash and other property files, lying in the car, including the mobile of the complainant. It is contended that admittedly the petitioner is registered owner of the car and hence no offence under Section 384 IPC is made out. However, there are serious allegations against the petitioner- accused. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Rather, his custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Tarlochan Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 26.10.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge