Criminal Misc. No. M-6241 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-6241 of 2011 Date of decision : 22.03.2011 Sudarshan Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 30 dated 28.01.2011 under Sections 420/467/468/471/457/380 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner took shop No. 14 on lease while the allegations pertain to shop No. 10. He submits that there is inherent contradiction in the case of investigating agency and thus petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that petitioner has taken illegal possession of the disputed property by breaking into it and committed theft of various Criminal Misc. No. M-6241 of 2011 2 articles lying there. He submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (North), Amritsar City in the matter. It was found that complaint Sudhir Kumar had taken the possession of property in dispute from Remington India Company after paying a rent of `9940/- in advance. On July 02, 2004, the said company had taken an advance rent of `15,000/- from Sudhir Kumar up to the year 2011. However, one Sanjiv Kumar @ Sehmi who was proclaiming himself to be the general power of attorney of Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, Amritsar had illegally transferred the property by executing 99 years lease in favour of Jagir Singh despite the fact that trial court vide decree dated 08.09.2003 restrained alienation of the said property. On the day of occurrence, the petitioner is alleged to have taken illegal possession of the said property by breaking into it and committed theft of various articles lying therein. In view of nature of allegations contained in the FIR, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. March 2, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE