Crl.M.No.M-30027 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-30027 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 9, 2010 Kuldeep Kaur .....Petitioner v. The State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.58156 of 2010 Requests for placing on record Annexures P2 and P3, i.e., copy of the civil suit and copy of order dated 9.8.2010. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.M-30027 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.119, dated 10.8.2010, under Sections 420, 448, 380, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar. 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, Jalandhar, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations are that Masat Ram complainant are five brothers and six sisters. His two brothers and one sister already expired. He alongwith his brother Vans Raj and the family was residing in the house in dispute. Father of complainant had died in the year 1980. On 4.8.2010, Vijay Kumar, i.e., son of brother of complainant died at Shimla and hence, he alongwith his family had gone to Shimla. The house was locked by the Crl.M.No.M-30027 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant before leaving for Shimla and, however, during his absence, the locks were broken and petitioner had taken illegal possession of the same on the plea that she had taken the house on rent from Santosh Kumar, i.e., son of sister of complainant and Ajay Kumar son of Murar Lal, i.e., the brother of the complainant, whereas they have no concern with the said house. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that petitioner also filed a civil suit against Santosh Kumar and Ajay Kumar for injunction and that injunction was also granted in favour of the petitioner by the civil Court. However, a perusal of the file shows that injunction suit was also filed on 9.8.2010, whereas the FIR was registered on 10.8.2010. As per allegations possession of the house was taken by the petitioner while the complainant was away to Shimla. Hence, the petitioner had taken the law in her own hand. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Kuldeep Kaur for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge