IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-37468 of 2011 Date of decision : December 22, 2011 Harbhajan Singh Sahota ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rao D.S. Nirban, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. RS Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Harbhajan Singh Sahota has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 67 dated 27.10.2011, under sections 452, 323, 427, 34 IPC, Police Station Cantt. Bathinda. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, petitioner and his co- accused trespassed into rented accommodation of the complainant to get it vacated forcibly and caused injuries to the complainant party and also damaged her house hold articles. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had expressed suspicion against the complainant for theft that took place in the house of the petitioner but the police after making spot inquiry had not registered any FIR in that case and the present FIR has been got registered to dilute the said theft case. The contention is completely Criminal Misc. No. M-37468 of 2011 -2- misconceived and devoid of merit because the complainant could not feel threat for the alleged theft case when even FIR has not been registered by the police even after spot inquiry at the instance of present petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner and his wife could not have caused injuries to the complainant when her three sons and neighbour were also present with her. This contention has been countered by learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Harphool Singh by submitting that the petitioner and his wife were also accompanied by 3/4 other persons. Tendency to take forcible possession of the property is on the rise. It not only causes problem for the person in occupation but also creates law and order problem and gives rise to criminal cases. This tendency has to be curbed. In the instant case, the complainant is tenant in the premises under the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly tried to take forcible possession of the rented premises and in the process the petitioner and his co-accused allegedly caused injuries to complainant party and also damaged house hold articles of the complainant. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, in my considered opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 22, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'