Dhanpat Singh v. State Of Haryana

-1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 26.2.2018 Dhanpat Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, AAG, Haryana assisted by SI Jai Bhagwan.

Mr. A.P.S.Mann, Advocate for the complainant.

**** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 682 dated 29.12.2017, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 150, 448, 365, 354, 307, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Model Town, Rewari, District Rewari (During the course of investigation Sections 379-B and 427 IPC were added. During further investigation Sections 148, 354, 307, 365, 379 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act were dropped and Sections 363 and 323 IPC were added).

Some photographs have been placed on record which were taken from the CCTV camera. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on record the time of the incident and the time in the clips figuring in the

-2CCTV camera.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had purchased a property from Anita on 24.1.2017 after verifying the title from the mutation and Anita did not reveal that she had already transferred the property in favour of her husband who in turn had transferred the property to his sister Seema and fraud has been played on them and the petitioner was not present at the time of the incident and he is ready to join the investigation.

Counsel for the complainant has referred to the photographs taken from the CCTV camera and he states that accused came in two cars and forcefully entered the house after scaling the boundary wall and they brought the complainant who is an aged woman and dragged her and wanted to take her away and they bundled her up and took her into a car and thrashed her. It was urged that the police had verified from the registration number of the car and it was found that Paramjit Thukral had come along with other assailants and Paramjit Thukral had a share in the property along with the petitioner and he went to the spot to throw the complainant out of the property. It was urged that police is helping the petitioner and they have deleted Section 365 IPC and some other sections.

State counsel submits that investigation has been handed over to another officer and a disclosure statement has been suffered by Paramjit who had named the petitioner and the lady had sustained fractures. The petitioner alleges that he had verified the record and had purchased the property from Anita.

-3December 2017. The visuals in the photographs show a daring incident when a number of persons came in different cars and scaled the wall of the house and entered the property and dragged out the complainant and took her away. Injuries were also inflicted upon her. As per the allegations, the incident took place at the instance of the petitioner. In these circumstances, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

The petition is dismissed.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE February 26, 2018 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No