Crl.M.No.M-24360 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-24360 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 23, 2010 Muskan .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.263, dated 13.7.2010, under Sections 457, 380, 411 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Sonepat. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioner are that on the night intervening 12/13.7.2010, shop of M/s. Shiv Mobile was broken open by some thieves and 50/60 mobile phones were stolen. During investigation, co-accused Najim was arrested from whose possession one mobile phone was recovered. He suffered disclosure statement that he had given some mobile phones to his brother Istyak. Thereafter Istyak was arrested and he further gave disclosure statement that he had given some mobile phones to his cousin sister Muskan, i.e., the present petitioner. Recovery of mobile phones is yet to be effected. All the accused are closely related, as per statements of co-accused. Petitioner is to be interrogated for effecting recovery of stolen mobile phones. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Rather, her custodial interrogation is necessary. Crl.M.No.M-24360 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Muskan for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 23.8.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge