High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/311/2016disposed of

Mohd. Issa And ORS. v. State Of Punjab

2016-05-26Mr. Justice S.P. Bangarh2 pages

CRM-M 311/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:26/05/2016.

Mohd.Issa and others ............Petitioners vs State of Punjab .............Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.GN Malik,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu,DAG Punjab assisted by ASI Harnek Singh Mr.DS Malwai,Advocate for the complainant.

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral) Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of four petitioners namely Mohd.Issa, Suraj Mohd., Mohd.Yamin and Sudhagar Mohd., in case FIR No. 60 dated 5.12.2015 under Sections 457, 380, 447, 294, 323, 506, 120-B IPC, PS City Ahmedgarh, Distt. Sangrur. Petitioner no.1 Mohd.Issa is owner of the shop having purchased it from previous owner Fazal Din in the year 2011. As per allegations levelled by complainant Mohd.Ramzan,petitioners have forcibly taken possession of the shop and removed the articles/committed theft of articles.

It was contended that the petitioner no.1 is an elected Municipal Councilor and the complainant on mutual understanding had vacated the possession,however, he has on instigation by political opponents put back the articles in the shop. It was further submitted that the petitioners were ready and willing for an amicable settlement of the matter. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners, vide order dated 8.1.2016 notice of motion was issued and interim protection was granted with a direction to petitioners to join investigation. RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.05.26 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M 311/2016 At the time of hearing, it is submitted that possession of the premises in question has been handed back to the complainant. Learned counsel for the State assisted by ASI Harnek Singh as also the counsel for complainant do not refute the factual position that possession of the premises has been handed back to the complainant. It is thus clear that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is no longer required.

In view of the above, interim bail granted vide order dated 8.1.2016 is made absolute.

Disposed of.

26.05.2016 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.05.26 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document