Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 284 (PNJ)

Jagdish Sharma v. State of Punjab and Another

2012-02-17

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
Hon’ble Ram Chand Gupta, J. (Oral) : The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.99 dated 12.07.2011 under Sections 454, 380, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Cantonment, District Amritsar City. 2. have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, allegations against the petitioner-accused are that respondent No.2 had taken shop in dispute on rent from present petitioner in February, 2010. The shop remained closed for nearly a month from 23rd June, 2011. Petitioner taking advantage of the same visited the shop with some other persons, broke open the lock and taken away the goods including garments lying in the shop worth Rs.1 lac. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 had made default in making payment of rent and cheques issued for payment of rent were dishonoured and petitioner filed as many as five complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Further contends that respondent No.2 left the shop of his own and hence, the petitioner has taken possession of the same. It is further contended that to show his bona fide, the petitioner has deposited Rs.1 lac with the Court as alleged value of goods allegedly taken away. 5. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that even if, there was some default in payment of rent by respondent No.2, petitioner was having no right to dispossess him forcibly from the shop in dispute by breaking open the lock of the shop and by taking away the goods lying in the shop. It is further contended that there was no question of handing over possession of the shop voluntarily by respondent No.2 to the petitioner and further that a person taking law in his own hands, is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the State on the instructions of ASI Tarsem Singh that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and hence, he is not entitled for concession of anticipatory bail. 7. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the State on the instructions of ASI Tarsem Singh that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and hence, he is not entitled for concession of anticipatory bail. 7. Even if, version of the petitioner that respondent No.2 made default in making payment of rent is admitted, his version cannot be accepted that he surrendered possession of the shop in dispute voluntarily to him. There is no such writing of respondent No.2 surrendering possession of the shop in dispute to the petitioner. Petitioner had taken the law in his own hands and has taken possession of the shop in dispute forcibly from his tenant. He is not ready to handover the possession of the shop in dispute to his tenant i.e. Respondent No.2. 8. In view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Jagdish Sharma is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.