In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-15465 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:24.5.2010 Vijay Kumar and others .....Petitioners v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Section 436 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Ram Naresh, who is living in the neighbourhood of House No. 496, Sector 56, Chandigarh which is owned by Narinder Kumar (petitioner No.2). Narinder Kumar (petitioner No.2) had let out the lower portion of his said house comprising of one room, one kitchen and one bath room to Raj Kumar who is residing there with his wife and children for the last 8-9 months. It is alleged that Narinder Kumar (petitioner No.2), his wife (petitioner No.3) and his two children (petitioners No.1 and 4) used to quarrel with Raj Kumar and his wife to vacate the house. On 15.4.2010, in the morning there was an exchange of hot words between the owners and the tenant. The tenant-Renu locked her house and went away. On the date of incident i.e. 18.4.2010 at about 11.10 a.m. the complainant was standing Cr. Misc. No.M-15465 of 2010 [2] outside his house and he saw that Narinder Kumar (petitioner No.2), his wife Madhu (petitioner No.3) and his son Vijay (petitioner No.1) and another son (petitioner No.4), whose name he did not know along with two other boys whom the complainant can recognize in case they are brought in front of him were there. Narinder Kumar (petitioner No.2) and his wife Madhu (petitioner No.3) were telling their sons (petitioners No.1 and 4) that the tenants would not vacate the house easily and that the house be set on fire and they (the tenants) would themselves run away out of fear. While the complainant was seeing Vijay Kumar (petitioner No.1) son of Narinder Kumar (petitioner No.2) called his brother (petitioner No.4) and the two boys who had come with them. They were carrying plastic bottles filled with petrol. They started pouring petrol inside the house. The complainant said not to do this as the fire would cause damage to others also. The other ladies, who were standing there also said not to do so and if the petitioners wanted to get the house vacated they could pick up the luggage and throw it out but the petitioners did not hear any one and in front of the complainant the boys opened the plastic bottle and poured petrol from below the door. The other boy took out a matchbox from his pocket and lit the matchstick and threw it on the petrol that was there under the door. The fire at once lit and it spread out inside the room. All those present got towards one side then Vijay (petitioner No.1) shouted that there is a fire and from his Mobile phone he made a telephone call that fire had broken out in house No.496, Sector 56, Chandigarh. Thereafter, all of them ran away from the spot. The complainant and the neighbours tried their level best to put off the fire. In the meantime, the fire brigade van also came at the spot and they broke open Cr. Misc. No.M-15465 of 2010 [3] the door of the house in their presence and doused the fire with water. The entire goods in the room had been destroyed due to the fire. Many ladies had seen that Narinder Kumar and his wife Madhu and their two sons; besides, two other boys had put the rented room on fire with a common intention by throwing petrol. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the allegations as made are absolutely false and the front door of the house has not been burnt, therefore, fire could not have been put inside the house. It may, however, be noticed that the allegations in the FIR are that the petrol was poured in the rented portion of the room from below the door and it is mentioned that the fire was lit with a match stick and the petrol turned into flames from inside the house by the fire put on the petrol which had been poured from below the door. The neighbour of the tenant has no reason to falsely implicate the petitioners. The fire brigade also reached the place of the incident and the fire was doused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in his order dated 13.5.2010 (Annexure-P.2) perused the photographs of the tenanted premises which were taken during the course of investigation. It was observed that the same revealed that the entire household articles lying in the tenanted premises were burnt in the said fire and substantial damage was caused to the tenanted premises. Whereabouts of the two unknown youngsters who accompanied the petitioners at the time of alleged occurrence was to be verified and that too from the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the nature of allegations of burning the house of the tenanted premises and also the Cr. Misc. No.M-15465 of 2010 [4] fact that the whereabouts of the two other persons who are said to be accompanying the petitioners has to be ascertained, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. May 24, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*